The House met at 1000.
Prayers.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS
LEGISLATIVE REFORM
Mr Callahan moved resolution 18:
That in the opinion of this House, the legislative process must be reformed to allow individual members the ability to vote for or against a measure as the majority of their electorate wishes, without it triggering a dissolution of the Legislature. It is also fundamental to a true democratic process that every individual member have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the policy decisions of the Legislature and this House calls upon the government to reform the parliamentary process in a way which would make the contribution of all members more meaningful.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.
Mr Callahan: First of all, I would like to say that 10 minutes is hardly enough time to debate an issue as fundamental and as important as this is to the continued respect that people of this province and, perhaps if it is taken up, other parliaments of this country have for the electoral process. I would hope that at some later stage there would be a full day or more devoted by this government to debating this very important issue.
I might also say that anything I am going to say in my remarks will not be partisan. It will refer to all governments that have operated in this House.
The interesting thing is that each one of us is elected by the people in our riding with great expectations. They anticipate that when we come down here to the Legislature, we will in fact be representing their views at all times.
I think anyone who has been in a majority government recognizes that this is not the case. There were catcalls from your side when you were in opposition; there are catcalls from this side when in fact everyone is applauding and voting exactly the same way. It is almost like pushing the button on a cash register; sometimes it registers a sale but more often than not it is a no sale.
I suggest that this issue is as important as the constitutional issue. Interestingly enough, Mr Spicer's report will be made public today. This issue is at the heart of the whole democratic process. For some reason, we have adopted a parliamentary process in this country that requires that party loyalty and party vote be the same on every occasion. I suggest to you that this does nothing but weaken the democratic process and in fact tells the person who has voted for the local member that he or she has absolutely no power here at Queen's Park.
That is a bad message to be sending out to the public. In fact, there should be, as I said in my motion, a reform of this process allowing for greater participation.
At the present time, we for some reason seem to think that if the party in power does not vote unanimously for a particular issue, the government will fall. That is not the case. In Great Britain for seven years, between April 1972 and 1979, there were 65 defeats of government measures. In fact, in recent British history there have been defeats of financial matters where the government has not fallen either.
In taking our parliamentary history from England, it is interesting as well to note that the purpose of the whip was not to handcuff people and bring them down and make them vote in a particular way. The purpose of the whip was to be a liaison between the private member and the minister, and if the whip could not convince the private member that his or her views had been heard by the minister in formulating policy, that person would not show up for the vote.
As you can see, we have a sort of aborted version of that which results in a situation that I am sure is recognized by people who watch a vote in this House on television.
I suggest there are ways this could be reformed. In the Northwest Territories -- and this would be the most absolute way -- there are no party affiliations whatsoever. People are elected at large, similar to a municipal election. At their first sitting in the House they choose their cabinet ministers and their leader and the Premier. If they are not happy with the cabinet ministers or the Premier somewhere along the way, they can change them at any time. I suggest that this is true democracy. I do not expect we are going to move to that system this rapidly, but I do suggest to members one thing that could happen.
In the processing of bills, as you know, we debate second reading in this House, which establishes the principle of the bill. Then when we go out to the committees and travel this beautiful province and spend taxpayers' dollars to find out the views of interested Ontarians, because the principle of the bill is already in place, it is like going out and listening to nothing. None of their views will be taken into consideration in terms of amending that bill. We have all seen it happen. When it comes back to the committee and we go through it clause by clause, very few, if any, amendments are made to that bill.
I suggest that if we change just this small thing, if instead of sending a bill out after second reading we send it out after first reading, before the principle of the bill is established -- let it go to a committee, empower the committees to travel the province, to take the views of the citizens, to take the views of their own constituents, entitle and empower them to introduce amendments to that bill -- we may get a whole series of amendments from various party members on that committee, but the United States does not seem to have difficulty with that. What you do is you give and you take and you come up with a bill that eventually is meaningful.
At present what we have is a system of government which is really ruled by the cabinet and, in most cases, not even the cabinet but a select group in the cabinet and the civil service. If that is the totality of the ideas that we can put into place in public policy in this province, we are bankrupt and I am surprised that we have survived as well as we have.
We are going into very bad times. Ontario is under a great deal of pressure constitutionally but also under pressure in terms of citizens of this community becoming very cynical about politics. So I suggest to you that this is a very important issue. It is as important as the constitutional issue on which we have about five committees travelling this country and taking the views of the electorate. I issue a challenge to the government of the day. If they are truly democratic, which is part of their name, they will establish a couple of days for us to debate this even further, perhaps to set up a select committee to travel this province and gain the views of the electorate as to whether or not they would like to see the process changed. I issue that challenge to this government. If it is not prepared to do it during its mandate, it is missing out on one of the most important items that we as elected people can expect. I know when I go back to my riding, I want to be able to tell my people that I took their very distinct views, their very distinct problems to Queen's Park and had some ability to solve them.
1010
I understand what the members opposite are going through. They have got a large majority. We call them clapping seals, and that is perhaps unfair, but in fact every one of them stands up on every measure that the government puts forward. Surely to heaven that cannot be because the members opposite believe in every measure. It is because they are forced to do it. They are forced by perks that are within the power of the Premier's office. That also has to stop. The powers that the Premier has to enforce a total vote have to be taken away.
Members of this Legislature, when an election is called, are going to have to go back to their ridings and ask for the trust of their electorate. If all they can say to them is, "Every time the government put forward an issue, I stood up and voted for it," they are going to have to defend those policies. Some of those policies are going to be contrary to the beliefs of the people in their riding, and they are going to find it very difficult to establish those.
The chicken way out, of course, is not to show up for the vote. I think that is an even bigger fraud on the public because these people have elected the honourable members and are paying their salaries to be here to deal with issues that are very important to them.
I am going to reserve the last two minutes. I would like to hear the statements by other members of the House. I would like to reserve the last two minutes, or whatever I have left, for response.
Mr McLean: I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on this resolution brought forward by the member for Brampton South, a resolution that calls for a reform of the legislative process to allow individual members to vote for or against, as the majority of their electorate wishes, without triggering a dissolution of the Legislature.
This resolution also notes that it is fundamental to a true democratic process that every individual member have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the policy decisions of this Legislature. It calls upon the government to reform the parliamentary process in a way which would make the contribution of all members more meaningful.
I would like to assure the member for Brampton South that I support the spirit of this resolution because it would allow all elected members to exercise more fully their speaking and voting freedom in this Legislature. It would also ensure that elected members adopt a philosophy I have always embraced, which is to be accountable to the people who have so much faith in us that they elected us to represent them in this Legislature.
However, I am puzzled about the source of this resolution. I am curious because it has come from an opposition Liberal member, and I know the previous Liberal government would never have supported this resolution. I suspect the current NDP government will not support it either.
That saddens me, because I remember a time when my party was in power and there was a proposal to close Ontario Hydro's regional office in Orillia and shift operations to Bracebridge. I recall this event very clearly because I, as a member of the governing party, took on Ontario Hydro at a public meeting which was attended by over a thousand of my own constituents who were opposed to this move. Needless to say, Ontario Hydro still has a strong presence in the sunshine city, and I feel it was people representation that made that happen.
I urge my colleagues here in the Legislature to give some serious thought to this resolution. Let us reform our process of democratic government and strengthen representative democracy here in Ontario.
In many cases, issues are currently dealt with in a partisan manner. It is my hope that by passing this resolution to reform the existing system, we will see some cross-party, issue-based coalitions formed that will deal with matters that are really relevant to our constituents. It would result in a true reflection of the views, the opinions and the concerns of the people who elected us to represent them. This is something I have sincerely tried to do since the people of Simcoe East first chose me to represent them back in 1981.
As I said earlier, I support the spirit of this resolution. However, I do not think it goes quite far enough. I personally believe the processes for dealing with private members' bills requires some reform. We all know that private members' bills that do not have the active support of ministers will not go very far, even though they may have the overwhelming support of the people of Ontario or those in this elected assembly. Ministers prefer to draft their own legislation according to the cabinet's will.
It is a known fact that the current procedure for private members' bills contains an implicit veto of the government House leader. This veto need not be explained or justified to elected representatives or to their constituents. For example, my private member's Bill 37, an Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators, was killed when the government members approved second reading and sent it to committee of the whole House rather than having it sent to the standing committee on resources development as I had requested. The government simply must fail to act. My private member's bill, when they failed to act on it, will now die on the order paper because the government never brings forward legislation that is sent to the committee of the whole House.
We have become so accustomed to the silent demise of private members' bills that the people of Ontario just assume it is going to happen. I believe that by broadening and passing this resolution, the people of Ontario will ultimately emerge as the winners, because they will be able to participate through their elected members more directly and fully in the province's democratic process.
That is what the new party, the Reform Party, is saying: "Our members will have freedom of choice. They will be able to go and express their opinions and the views of their constituents in the House of Commons."
To me, that is what should happen here, what should happen in all legislatures, because I believe in those people of the majority. I can say that is the reason I am still here today. I was re-elected through two difficult elections because I expressed the views of my constituents in this Legislature. I make it well known in my riding that I am available, that I will bring their views here. I have public meetings with my people, and the views that are brought to me are brought to this House.
When you look at the functions of a backbencher in some of the material we have through legislative services, it indicates that the backbenchers' duties are important, the opposition parties' duties are important. I believe this resolution, if the government would see fit to implement it, proceed with it and have public hearings on it, would be of benefit to all of us.
The problem is that cabinet ministers have legislation they want passed and members of that party must support it. The standing committee on government agencies has been reviewing appointments. We have seen a full complement of the government party there. I have not ever seen one vote against any of the government's recommendations. We have seen members come in and interview them, sit and listen, and then new members come in the next day and vote for them without even knowing what took place in that interview.
I support this resolution very strongly. It is my type of resolution. I am glad the member brought it forward. I compliment him for doing that. It allows us to have a good discussion of what a lot of us feel, but what the government members fail to do: listen to their constituents and bring those points of view here.
I remember one time in committee where about 84% of the people who came before us were opposed to what the government was doing; 84% of those delegations were opposed to it, yet the government went ahead and did it. That, I believe, is where we have gone wrong in this democracy, when we are not listening to the people and points of view of the people and expressing them and doing what the people of the province want. That is why we are today having the problem we have in all governments with regard to the people, why they are upset and unhappy.
I support this resolution very strongly. I know my colleague who will be speaking later will be indicating his views on it. I want to thank the member for Brampton South for bringing this forward.
1020
Mr Drainville: It gives me great pleasure today to stand in this House and speak about the resolution that has been put forward by the member for Brampton South.
It says in the resolution, "That in the opinion of this House, the legislative process must be reformed to allow individual members the ability to vote for or against a measure as the majority of their electorate wishes, without it triggering a dissolution of the Legislature." Let me address that first.
I have to say there is no question in my own mind that there is a need to be more responsive to the electorate in Ontario and indeed our own constituents. To that end, I agree there needs to be great reform. We have a system of party discipline in Canada and in Ontario which is one of the most extreme in the world in how it operates. I grant there are different approaches, different reasons they have this rule, but in Westminster in London, the Mother of Parliaments, we have a situation in which members of the government can vote against a government bill and still not bring down the government if the government bill falls.
I think that understanding has to be brought here to this country. There has to be a means by which government members themselves can show they do not support a particular government measure. The reason for that is twofold. Not only is that responsiveness to the electorate, which I think has to fundamentally undergird any decision made by this Legislature, but I think also it indicates that the cabinet, the executive council, has to ensure that when a bill is going through the House it has the support of the House, which is in itself a fundamental principle of responsible government, that the executive or the cabinet stands or falls by the will of the House. In that sense, rather than breaking down the system, it will be a reinforcing element to ensure that our democratic freedoms are maintained in this place if such a change were to take place.
As I look at this, though, I would quibble with the words. I am going to support the resolution, but I want to deal with the words. It says in the resolution, "to allow individual members the ability to vote for or against a measure as the majority of their electorate wishes." I spend a lot of time in my riding. I am there every weekend. I am going to functions, I am talking to people, I see people in my office, but at any given time I do not know what the majority of the electorate really feels on any particular bill or issue. I certainly have a sense of some people or some groups in the riding, but I cannot say I have an understanding of the majority of the electorate.
We have to be realistic here, and we have a fine line to walk. On one hand, we have to be far more responsive than we have been to the needs and the aspirations of our constituents, and it means we have to work very hard to understand what they are saying to us and to bring those needs and concerns here to this House. On the other hand, we still have the system of party discipline. It needs to be changed, but the reality is that even with changes we have party discipline. The government is putting forth a platform and saying, "This is the direction we want to go and we're asking the people of this province to support us in that." Understanding that there is that balance, we have to decide on reforms which will be constructive and helpful to maintaining that balance. Although we need to change, we need to keep that balance.
I would like to speak about question period. I approach this issue with a great deal of trepidation, because any comment I make might be construed as a comment that would be very critical of the opposition, and I do not intend to be critical of the opposition. In fact, I intend to be critical of all members of the House, and I want that to be very clearly understood by members of the opposition who are here today.
Our question period has to change. To say this is a zoo during question period is the understatement of the year. It is not acceptable. I am ashamed at times to have constituents of mine come into this House and see the kinds of behaviour that go on in this place. I say this about members on both sides of the House; I am not accusing the opposition. When someone is up speaking in the House, very often we are incapable of hearing it.
That is in terms of the climate, and I just want to make that statement because I think it needs to be said. But in terms of the structure of Parliament and the ability in question period for the opposition to exercise its responsibilities in ensuring accountability on the part of the government, there needs to be a change in the standing rules here in the House, for instance, a time limit on the asking of questions and a time limit on the answering of questions. In asking questions, no matter who is on the other side of the House, whether it is our party in the past or the parties there now, what we see is that the preambles to questions go on and on and on, and basically they are preambles which naturally are inflammatory, because it is the opposition, whoever is there, and they are preambles that do not edify in the least and do not help the question in the least. They are made to make political points. That becomes a problem because it goes on and on and does not help in finding out the information or maintaining the accountability of the government.
In terms of the response by ministers, whoever is on this side of the House, no matter what party, the responses tend to be long, maybe even at times to talk out the clock. They tend to be convoluted and they tend very often to deflect from the issue at hand.
I am sure we cannot stop the members on either side of the House from couching their questions and responding to those questions in the particular way chosen by the people at that time, but what we can do, what is within our power, is to change the standing orders of the House to ensure that more people get up and ask questions, that there is a limit to the time taken to ask questions and a time limit to answer those questions, therefore providing opportunity for more members of the House to get into the act. The present system, whereby the leaders of the two opposition parties take up half the clock, to me is not acceptable because there are so many members in the House who have very legitimate concerns they want to bring to this House, having to do not only with the great issues of the day but the issues that affect in minute ways their constituents and the needs and aspirations of those particular people.
What I am saying is that in question period we have to have legitimate changes.
The last point I want to bring up has to do with the standing committees of this Legislature. The present system we have does not work. It has to do with how the government brings in legislation for first reading and then after second reading, that is, agreement in principle, it goes out to committee.
The reality, as we all know -- again, whoever is on this side of the House as government -- is that when a bill is put forth it has received agreement in principle and the chance of changing that bill in any substantive way is impossible. It just does not happen, and we know that by history, so we need to change that system.
There are a couple of ways of changing the system. There are models out there that are worth looking at. For instance, I ask the members of the Legislature to think about the model in Quebec or the model they have in Sweden. In both cases we are looking at the bills going out at an earlier stage, at a stage when there is still some flexibility and the government is not tacking on its colours to that particular bill. It goes out into the community where hearings are held, where people are able to give their points of view, then it is brought back and it receives its formal crafting, then goes into the House to receive that agreement in principle. In my view we need to make substantive changes to the way the standing committees operate.
1030
Two other aspects about the standing committees: I believe the committees need more power. I believe the committees need the leeway to be able to make investigations and pursue the lines they believe are important. Presently the system for funding those committees is through the Board of Internal Economy. That needs to be changed. There needs to be a budget which is a lump sum, global budget, given to the committees of the Legislature and, within that framework, they need to be given the opportunity to decide their agenda and their direction. It is by doing that that we can ensure, again, that there is good input in all the legislation that is brought to this House. So we need to see those kinds of changes.
It is my pleasure to support this resolution. It is my pleasure to serve in this place, but it is my duty to represent the people of Victoria-Haliburton and to ensure that the work we do here is not only edifying to the members so that they can do the work they need to do, but that we begin to give the kind of leadership people in Ontario are expecting of us. If we begin to make these changes we will see a Legislature which not only functions well but does everyone proud.
Mr Cordiano: I am very pleased to rise and speak to the resolution brought forward by my colleague the member for Brampton South. I happen to believe, along with my colleagues who spoke on this at this time, that this is perhaps the most fundamental issue we face with respect to the House and its workings.
I believe the time has come for fundamental reforms. We had a period of reforms prior to this. We did some tinkering with the role that members would follow and pursue in this House, but I think fundamental change is required here. We need to do that in order to become more accountable, in order to become more responsive to the needs of our constituents.
There was a clear message sent in the last election. At least to me it was rather clear. What people said was that they wanted a minority government, and that was a very clear signal at door after door and I got this over and over again, and I would venture to guess that a lot of members heard that. I think it is a crying out for greater representation in this House on the part of individual members who would then be more responsive to the needs of their constituents, who would perhaps at times bring forward alternative views on a variety of issues, the great issues of the day which are rather controversial, and have been. We have dealt with a number of them over the period of time I have been a member of this Legislature. They cannot be given full expression, not when members are shackled by the constraints of partisan party politics. It is rather difficult to do without paying a supreme price here as a member.
As we are set up in the party system in this Legislature it is rather difficult to have that freedom of expression, as I say, without the consequences that go along with it, not because you are going to lose your seat and not because you are going to be ousted from your party, but oftentimes you will be an outcast. You will be on the fringes, and I do not think that is the price members should have to pay for disagreeing with the party line. On the contrary, I think we have to reward the kind of independence and individuality and creativity that all of us can bring to this Legislature, that all of us can offer in terms of crafting legislation and bringing forward alternative views, better views perhaps, that would bring about better legislation.
I want to deal with a number of issues which were brought up by previous speakers. I think standing committees are the route by which members can be empowered. The standing committees of the Legislature must be given that independence that the previous speaker, my colleague the member for Victoria-Haliburton, spoke so well about. Standing committees ought to be given free rein with respect to financial setup. The budgeting of those committees must be given consideration on an independent level or on an independent format. Allowing committees to set their own agendas and have the funds to do it with would allow them the freedom and flexibility that is required to make this place more effective.
In addition to that, standing committees being able to deal with legislation before it is brought to second reading is a good thing and an essential thing if we are going to bring about the necessary reforms we are talking to here today.
With respect to the whipping that takes place in each of our parties, I think the British model is something we should look to. As my colleague the member for Brampton South, who brought this resolution forward, mentioned earlier, we should set up a select committee to look into these matters further. It requires further study. None of us here today would suggest that we have all the answers on the way in which this could work most effectively. By working together, all members on a select committee would be given the opportunity to examine the best alternative in the end that would make sense.
But this must be a non-partisan approach that we must take in order to bring about these fundamental reforms. Nothing is going to happen with respect to balance, which the previous speaker, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, spoke about. The scales are tipped right now in favour of the cabinet, in favour of the executive branch of the Legislature. It is inevitable that the executive branch will exercise its authority. It has to in order to function in the way we are set up in this House. But we have to separate, to a greater extent than we have currently, the executive branch from the legislative branch. That is essentially what we are talking about here today. We do not have that separation. We do not have that arm's-length approach that is required. The balance is not there; it is far from it.
The previous speaker spoke to decorum and the antics, the charades perhaps, that take place in question period. I would agree that the decorum of the House is important because we are watched on a daily basis by the public. I think we should be a model for other public institutions that carry on public business. That certainly has not been the case in this House, but members must remember this is a highly charged political place with radically different views on either side of the House. All three parties have different views. We see that now; we see there are perhaps three divergent opinions on a number of issues. I do not think that is going to change. I think people bring to this place their heartfelt principles and deal with those in a very partisan way. I do not have a problem with that.
The way people comport themselves in this House is another story. I think it behooves all of us to deal with that on an individual, personal basis, but with respect to this resolution that is a side issue, quite frankly. It is important to deal with time limitations on members, for all members to have an opportunity to ask questions. I agree with that.
I am running out of time and I would like to give my colleague his due so I am going to sit down. But this, I believe, is of fundamental importance and I call on all members to support this resolution and to move forward with it and to encourage those of our party colleagues who perhaps have the reins of power to deal with this resolution and bring it to their caucuses.
1040
Mr Arnott: I am very pleased to rise today to speak to private member's notice of motion 18, sponsored by the member for Brampton South:
"That, in the opinion of this House, the legislative process must be reformed to allow individual members the ability to vote for or against a measure as the majority of their electorate wishes, without it triggering a dissolution of the Legislature." Then it goes on.
I would like to compliment the member for Brampton South for this initiative. I have tried to capture something of the same line of thought within my own private member's ballot item, Bill 111, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act. I will briefly speak about what mine will do when it comes for second reading.
I hope to amend the oath of office members of the Legislature take so that right in the wording of the oath it will be that we represent our constituents to the best of our ability within the confines of our conscience. That is a very important measure we must take in this Legislature and indeed all the legislatures and in the House of Commons. I think it has been lacking. As has been said by other speakers in this debate, the executive branch does have too much power. Our system is set up such that the parties' leadership can dictate to a large extent how all of us act and comport ourselves.
I think all of us come here initially with a great deal of ambition to represent our people. All of us attempt to do that. I certainly have tried as best I can to voice the views of my constituents in this House and in caucus. I came here, and probably others might feel this way as well, with some measure of naïveté about how the process works. There are times when forces restrict our ability to speak publicly on behalf of our constituents in spite of our best efforts.
We all have the freedom to speak freely in caucus. I hope the other two caucuses are as lively and spirited as ours. There is a lot of passion in our caucus when members try to bring forward the views of their constituents and that is very important, but the public does not see that and the public has to see what is going on. If we can get that sort of exchange going in the public's eye, they would have a lot more respect for the process, for the structures of government and for the members of the Legislature themselves.
So I think it is absolutely imperative that all three parties support this initiative today, because we have to send a message to the executive branch of all governments that the private members need more power to speak in favour of their constituents without that sort of restrictive framework.
I was heartened to see in the last federal government throne speech of a few weeks ago some lipservice to the fact that all members of the House of Commons would be given more ability to speak on behalf of their constituents, more ability to vote the way their constituents wish. I wish I could say I am confident that is going to occur in the federal House, because I do not think it is. Given the things that have happened in Ottawa in the last little while, I have been very disappointed with a lot of the initiatives coming forward there and I just cannot see it. But we in our own place have an opportunity to try and push for this and I hope that all members do.
I am disappointed that the media is substantially not here on private members' hour, because I think a lot of views come forward. If some of the things that happen here were reported more, the public's perception of and respect for this place would be enhanced considerably.
When I was first elected to come here and the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brant-Haldimand, gave a very eloquent response to the speech from the throne back last fall and there was no media here, I was surprised. They left after question period and I was stunned by that, because I was sitting here listening to the Leader of the Opposition, the member who has been here for 29 years, I guess it is, and the respect that I have for him and the enjoyment that his speech gave me, and the media was not here. I find that shocking and I do not quite understand it.
I think the media tends to distort some of the things we do here. If a member does speak against his own party or his own party leader, the media explodes it as a sign of weakness in the party and it is not the case. The media has a big role to play in changing this perception.
The member for Lawrence talked about the call in the last election for a minority government. I heard that constantly at the door and I think that was one of the reasons some people supported me, because they did not want a majority government and they wanted an opposition member to be sent from Wellington.
As it turned out, we did not get the government we all thought we were going to get. We did not get a minority government either. We have not got a minority government in Ottawa. In spite of the fact that 39% of the Ontario public voted for the NDP, we have a majority NDP government, and in Ottawa we have a majority federal government, a Conservative government naturally, and it did not get a plurality of the popular vote in total.
So I think there is a lot of room for this sort of initiative and I want to once again compliment the member for Brampton South for this and urge all members of the House to support it.
Mr Mills: It is a pleasure to rise here this morning and speak to the resolution of the member for Brampton South. I know that he speaks passionately on this issue. I am just wondering why he was not so passionate about the issue when his party formed the government with such a massive majority that they could have done something about this.
I find interesting the comments from the third party members who support it. I would just like to remind the member for Simcoe East, whom I respect a very great deal, that when he says he is quick to speak out for his constituents, I think most of us here are, in one form or another. I suspect that when the honourable member for Simcoe East was a member of the Conservative government, in those days he was marching to the tune of a different drummer.
I mailed out 50,000 questionnaires to my constituency just recently, asking their opinion and what they thought about the current situation. I must say that the answers about how I could represent them best were just unbelievable. They covered the whole spectrum of reducing taxes and making beer cheaper and making cigarettes cheaper. If we are trying to represent our constituencies here on that sort of a basis, I think it is rather impossible. I think we have to go along with the basis of why we were elected and the party that was elected.
Everybody out there knows the philosophy of the party we belong to, and they know the position we take on a number of issues. I think when they cast their ballot they are fully aware of what the people and the party represent. To say that you come here to change the point of view of the government of the day I do not think is practical and I do not think it is possible. It is enough just on Thursdays when we have private members' bills, the variety of the bills that come up. If that were the process in this House, we would have so many ideas and thoughts before this House that I doubt very much we would get anything done at all.
As for taking up issues for constituents, I think there is a good forum here for taking up the positions of constituents, and I do it constantly. I go to the minister involved and lobby him; I go to the departments and speak very forcibly for my constituents. I think the answers that get back and the things that we do in the government for our constituents are not necessarily public knowledge, only to those people who are here who know about them.
As far as being here in the government, I think we are here to represent the policies of the government that we were elected to pursue, and I am very pleased to be able to do that.
I support the spirit of the resolution to a degree, but I am afraid I cannot support it based on the fact that I think people know and expect people to respect the party and the philosophy of that party they elected.
1050
Mr Henderson: This is an outrageous debate. It is outrageous because we should not need to be having it.
Four and a half years ago, this Legislature almost unanimously adopted a resolution of mine which urged that private members should vote more freely in this House, because government does not become unworkable and the legislative process does not grind to a halt when private members really do debate and decide on matters of public policy.
It is now four and a half years since this Legislature almost unanimously asked the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to change the way we operate and to report back to the House about ways of achieving significant changes. What is shocking is that four and a half years after this Legislature almost unanimously and very clearly expressed its views on the subject, we are here today voting and debating on very much the same matter. That somehow proves the point. If proof is needed of the need for legislative process reform, the very fact that we are here today doing it all over again shows that something is seriously amiss.
I know that voices are occasionally raised in opposition to reformist views. There are those who argue that responsible government in the British parliamentary tradition depends on caucus unanimity. Those voices argue that our legislative process will fail and government will become unworkable if authorities cannot command the loyalty of elected members.
Analogous arguments may have been made, I suspect, against the Magna Carta and probably against the very conception of democracy thousands of years ago. But what kind of democracy argues against legislators' freedom to speak and vote? What kind of democracy do we have if elected representatives of the people do not have the prerogative to balance the views of their constituents against personal conscience and against the position of a party in their legislative role? What kind of democracy and what kind of leadership do we have if a party leader has to order his caucus to follow his or her lead? A few members will recall Bill 94, the extra billing debate, when I shocked and upset some of my caucus colleagues by arguing for a middle ground and by speaking -- although, incidentally, not by voting -- at variance with the official caucus view.
I went to Montreal for some advice back then and I spent three quarters of an hour with Pierre Trudeau in his office, agonizing about what I should do in that, for me, very difficult situation. Trudeau's observations were crystal clear. In fact, I think he hardly even saw an issue. He told me that as an elected representative I should follow the dictates of my conscience, and that was that. I told him of my concern for the reaction in my party and he dismissed that with a wave of his hand and a simple observation that the party would sooner or later respect me for what I was doing. His advice was so very different from what I was hearing around Queen's Park from all but a very few of my legislative colleagues that I asked him whether he would have given me the same advice were I a member of a caucus of which he was the current leader. He replied without a moment's hesitation that he would, and he listed a dozen examples of individuals who had voted independently during his leadership. Then he added a substantial list of them that he had subsequently appointed to cabinet.
For me, Trudeau's attitude was the attitude of a true political leader and statesman. That is the kind of leadership that attracts support and does not need to command it. That is the kind of leadership that we should be endeavouring to enshrine in our reform of the legislative process. I wish I could ask Pierre Trudeau now what kinds of reforms, in his view, would bring Canadian legislative practice in line with those clear and unequivocal views that he expressed in 1987.
It should not depend on the whim of a particular leader to allow the members of a caucus to state their point of view. That is what we are elected for; that is just the way it ought to be. While I am shocked at the necessity to have this debate again today, I am also delighted that we are doing it, for reform has come of age in Ontario and Canadian politics. In 1987 I was regarded as, at best, a maverick, for the views that I uttered on behalf of private members' speaking and voting freedom, let alone for doing it. Somehow in 1991, the worm has turned and we are all talking about reform of legislative process in Canada.
Let's go back to the drawing board and decide what really makes sense in a Canadian context. Let's ensure that representative democracy really is representative democracy. Let's remind ourselves of the travesty of democratic process when apparent unanimity is based on enforced groupthink. Let us remind ourselves that legislators doing as they are told are not involved in democratic government. Let us remind ourselves that discipline that does not respect rational evaluation and discussion of alternatives in our assembly is not discipline at all in a democracy, and that agreement is not agreement if not freely given.
Let us remind ourselves that reasoned voices of constructive dissent are a matter for caucus pride, not a matter for embarrassment. Very clearly, governments do not fall and legislatures do not become unworkable when the executive bows to the wishes of the House on a wide variety of legislative matters and under a wide variety of circumstances.
We must restore the autonomy and authority of private members. If I have any criticism of this resolution, it would be that it does not go far enough. In my opinion, there is much more that we should do. We should expand the authority and freedom of committees, tenure their members, much reduce the influence of party whips in committees and ensure that voices of real democracy are brought to bear on committee work.
We should look very carefully at my own Bill 21, An Act to establish a Committee respecting the Direct Election of the Premier. That bill proposes consideration of a fixed term of office, general elections at specified intervals and freedom of electors to vote for a personal representative as well as for a leader of a government.
I invite my legislative colleagues to join with me in reaffirming our commitment to representative democracy and to show that free speech lives and thrives with Ontario legislators of all three parties.
Mr Callahan: I want to thank members of the Legislature for speaking as they have. I would like to indicate to the member for Durham East, who is a good friend, that we can see the passion -- that both of the gentlemen who spoke on my bill were very much involved in trying to reform this process, as were many members of our caucus. This is not something that has just arisen since the members opposite came into government.
I can tell them that Bill 111, which the member for Wellington brings and which would require us, in our oath, to represent the constituents in our riding to the best of our ability and the best of our conscience, should hardly be required. If as we start the legislative day in this chamber each occasion that the House is sitting, if truly when we are speaking the opening prayer we know what we are saying and we believe what we are saying, there is no need for Bill 111. In fact, we are sworn by this to do it. I would like to read it to you because I think it is something that each and every member should reflect on:
"Give to each member of this Legislature a strong and abiding sense of the great responsibilities laid upon us. Guide us here in our deliberations. Give us a deep and thorough understanding of the needs of the people we serve. Help us to use power wisely and well. Inspire us to decisions which establish and maintain a land of prosperity and righteousness where freedom prevails and where justice rules. Amen."
If we truly believe those words and if we wish to maintain democracy and represent our electorate in the fashion that they have given us by way of trust -- if these words mean something -- I suggest there should be a unanimous decision to support this motion. In fact, the government should take the opportunity to either put a select committee in place or at least have a full day or two of debate in this House on the question of reform.
1100
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE
Mrs Cunningham moved second reading of Bill 124, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.
Mme Cunningham propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 124, Loi portant modification du Code de la route.
Mrs Cunningham: Naturally I am very supportive of the legislation that we find necessary to present before this House today. I very much appreciate the members being present and the interest they have shown over the last few weeks and months with regard to legislation that will make it mandatory for people to wear helmets when they are riding bicycles.
This bill is a very simple amendment to the Highway Traffic Act and adds the word "bicycle." What we are saying to people is, "You are now wearing helmets when you are riding on our highways on motorized vehicles such as motorbikes and motorcycles, and now, although education has been important, it has come to our attention that the statistics are so significant with regard to injuries, especially head injuries, that we are presenting this motion today."
I would like to begin by thanking the members of the Ontario Head Injury Association who are visiting today in the members' gallery, with special attention to Debbie Kerslake who is in the Speaker's gallery. I would like to also thank Dr Brian Morris, a physician from Barrie and a member of the Coalition for Head Injury Prevention in Barrie, and Laura Spence and Dr David Wesson, both from the Hospital for Sick Children and members of the Kiwanis injury prevention and research program, as well as Sarah Hood, who has given information to us from the Toronto City Cycling Committee, Chris Anerchek from the Ontario Nurses' Association, and Richard Greco for the Head Injury Association of Toronto. All of these people have not only assisted me in my work over the last few years but, of course, have assisted the citizens of Ontario and especially children when it comes to the prevention of serious injury due to the fact that people are not wearing bicycle helmets.
As we know, the riding of bicycles in urban Canada is increasingly popular with regard to sport, leisure and transportation. It happens to be Canada's favourite summer recreation and the second most popular year-round activity. Regrettably, the trend has been accompanied by a dramatic increase in the number of bicycle-related injuries, particularly among children and adults, and for this reason we are presenting my private member's Bill 124, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.
Each year in Canada, more than 5,000 children will be seriously injured and more than 60 children will die in bicycle accidents, most from head injuries. Bicyclists with helmets have an 85% reduction in the risk of a head injury and an 88% reduction in the risk of a brain injury. Although 93% of children six to 16 years old ride a bicycle, only 2% to 3% wear helmets. The Canadian Paediatric Society strongly endorses wearing a helmet while cycling.
In spite of all of this, a study at Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in 1988 found that even after an accident, few children wear them. Of 517 children admitted to emergency that summer following a bicycle accident, approximately 100 had head injuries and were admitted to the hospital. As a parent, I was shocked to learn that of the 517 youngsters only 13% owned helmets but, even more shocking, only 2.5% wore them.
A bicycle helmet, as we all know -- it has been proven -- is the most important single piece of equipment for reducing the incidence of serious head injury. Physicians, health care workers and family members are too familiar with the immediate and long-term effects of head injuries. Apart from the tragedy of death, many victims who survive with brain injuries also suffer from physical disabilities, seizures, intellectual and memory impairment and personality changes. Their lives and those of their families are changed for ever.
Physicians, the Ontario Head Injury Association and the Ministry of Transportation all want to heighten the public awareness of the benefits of wearing an approved safety helmet when riding a bicycle. I commend all of them for their present and past bicycle safety campaigns. We know they must continue, with or without legislation. The most important prevention of injury is the tool of education.
The Minister of Transportation has recently announced public meetings to give motorists, cyclists and pedestrians a chance to express their comments on the ministry's current bicycle policy review. It begins today in Ottawa. I thought, "How timely." I am certain the minister will seriously consider the public's recommendations. I should also say they will be meeting in London and other cities throughout the summer, and I urge the members of this Legislative Assembly and people listening to us today to find out exactly when those hearings will take place. It takes all of us working together to make good legislation and good rules in this province for our citizens.
There is another young man we are all indebted to, a head-injured young man -- by the way, when he was only 10 years old, riding his own bicycle. He could not come today, he is so busy helping out. His name is Jeremy Rempel, and just yesterday he was in St Catharines to support Project Headgear. The official opening was in St Catharines, and it was the Niagara launch. I am sure it will be happening all over Ontario. The two goals are, first, to promote awareness of the dangers of riding a bicycle without a helmet and, second, to promote the wearing of helmets.
At this time, as a person who is always speaking against legislation that permeates our lives as citizens, I find myself, given the statistics I have just introduced to this debate today, saying we have to go a step further. An example of preventive medicine, I would think, is to support our private member's bill today. A bike helmet cannot keep someone from falling off a bike, but it can prevent the majority of head injuries. We know how much seatbelts have helped us deter injuries and deaths. Also, our role models for our young children are football and hockey players, police and construction workers, who all think it important to keep their heads safe.
As a matter of fact, here in Toronto the city police have a force of cyclists, as we do in London, Ontario. I thought it would be important to show the House today some pictures of the helmets being worn by 12 members of the city police in London, of which I and my colleague sitting across from me, the member for London South, are very proud. We like being from a city that shows leadership, and here we are today once again. After a conversation with the chief of police, Mr Shipley, he said he would not even consider putting officers on the street without a helmet. We have made a lot of progress in the last two or three years with respect to the acceptance of this piece of legislation, I am sure.
I would like to tell parents it is important that they not only encourage their children to wear helmets but that they show them how to wear them. I would also like to let my colleagues know there are approximately seven companies that manufacture CSA approved helmets in various sizes. In fact, Leader helmets, manufactured in Montreal, have standards which are apparently higher than the CSA standard. So we have lots of choices. I can go into detail about that afterwards if the members so request.
In Hamilton, the Earl Kitchener Parent-Teacher Association just last week ran a special program so that helmets could be made affordable to the students in that school. I think that is good leadership in our province. In fact, they have a special program so the students can buy them very inexpensively, and some will receive them for nothing.
Also, Sandoz Triaminic is sponsoring a special offer to encourage the wearing of bicycle helmets. If members have an opportunity to read this pamphlet, we would all appreciate it. Family doctors and paediatricians have distributed some 23,000 of these brochures. We have to say hats off to people who are involved in family medicine in the prevention of head injury, because they have done a wonderful job. There is a toll-free number here. Yesterday I was informed by Dr Morris that over 4,000 helmets have been ordered in the first three weeks of this campaign. I think that is good news for our province.
I am very aware of the problems with enforcement. If I am given more time today during this speech, I will talk about the enforcement practices in Australia and in the state of New Jersey. I understand that the reason for asking this to be referred to committee is so that we can come up with some good ideas and practicable ones around the idea of enforcement.
1110
Mr Wessenger: I am very pleased to be able to speak in support of this legislation. First, I would like to acknowledge Dr Brian Morris, who is a constituent of mine and who also happens to be my family doctor, for making me aware of the extent of this problem with respect to head injuries. Also, I would like to acknowledge the assistance of the local head injury association in making me aware of the extent of this problem.
Accidents are the leading cause of loss of life before the age of 65 in our society. This statistic is from the US National Centers for Health. In the past, we have taken legislative steps to prevent injuries in the accident area. We have seatbelt legislation, we have child-proof medicine containers, we have bars or restraints on upper-storey windows and we have the requirement for wearing helmets while riding motorized vehicles. This legislation adds the bicycle helmet use to legislative requirements.
Head injuries account for over 60 deaths per year and over 5,000 children seriously injured. In terms of percentage, 14% of all children's injury deaths are attributable to bicycle accidents. That is a high percentage, so we must address this problem.
And look at the human cost of head injuries: first, the loss of life and, second, the loss of quality of life for individuals suffering head injuries and the effect on their families. There is no effective treatment for brain-damage injuries. From a preventive health care position, it is very important that we do everything we can to prevent these types of injuries, for the individuals involved and their families and, second, for the effect on the health care system.
In my community, Dr Morris has worked very extensively to promote the use of bicycle helmets. He promoted an educational campaign in the school system on a pilot basis to encourage the use of helmets. What he found from that experiment is that education alone is not enough to promote the use of helmets. That is why he came to the conclusion that we need legislative action in this area, and I support him in that position.
He also indicated that he did a recent survey in the community which is somewhat encouraging with respect to the use of bicycle helmets. Looking at the use of helmets by schoolchildren, in the spring of 1990, 5% of children were using helmets; in the fall of 1990 it had gone up to 7%; and the recent survey he did showed an increase of 17.8% in the use of helmets by schoolchildren. I think that is very commendable, to show what can be done when an effort is made to promote the use of helmets.
Therefore, I would ask that the House support this legislation and send it to the standing committee on resources development. I would also suggest that we need public education programs to go along with this legislation. Also, I think we have to look at the question of encouragement or incentives with respect to the purchase of helmets.
Mr Mancini: I have a great deal of difficulty in dealing with this particular private member's legislation. My difficulty stems from the fact that in principle it is good legislation in that it creates a public policy whereby we protect a large segment of our population. The difficulty I have with the legislation is that while it creates this public policy, it does not assist the general public in acquiring the protective gear that is going to be mandated by law.
As my colleague said earlier, we have passed innumerable pieces of legislation which are for the public good, which help protect the public from physical injuries. I believe he mentioned seatbelt legislation and the mandatory wearing of helmets for people who ride motorcycles.
Automobile companies today have moved not only from seatbelts but to air bags. This has been a slow process, and the reason the process has been slow, rightly or wrongly, is the cost involved. The cost of an air bag is substantial. Most vehicles have air bags on the driver's side only. You have to get into the luxury vehicles or expensive vehicles before you get air bags for the driver and the passenger. Many injuries are caused because air bags are not in all vehicles, yet we do not see the mandatory legislation that is necessary to have these air bags put throughout the vehicle, which would prevent innumerable injuries. The reason we do not see it is because of the cost. Excessive cost would affect the sales of the automobiles, which would affect jobs in that particular industry.
I say this not in any way to diminish the very good work that has been done by the member for London North or in any way diminish the needs that she so eloquently described earlier today. I bring this out in order that we may face the situation and all of its circumstances. All of the statistics that my two honourable colleagues before me spoke of are true. They have been documented by individuals expert in their field. They have been documented in journals which we can find in our libraries. As a matter of fact, in short order I was able to receive innumerable pieces of information which would clearly document for all to see the benefits of helmets worn by cyclists if cyclists decided to wear them.
We could obtain the same documentation, as I said, in regard to automobile traffic and air bags. I am not fundamentally opposed to the legislation. I think the legislation should go to committee. It should be discussed and the problems surrounding the legislation should be resolved. Only yesterday I received a phone call from an individual who said he has four small children in his family and all of them have bikes but he cannot afford the $40 each that it costs to have helmets. That is a personal decision being made by the family. I believe, and I think all members would agree with me, that there are probably thousands of families who cannot afford helmets. They cannot afford it. Just as many families cannot afford to buy winter coats for their children but the province assists those particular families, are we going to extend public policy to assist these families in buying helmets? If we are, I want to know how much it will cost and how we will fund it and how that squares with a lot of the things we have heard in the Legislature in this past session about restraining government expenditures.
My other concern is the enforcement of this particular public policy. I, like you, Mr Speaker, represent a constituency where there are a number of police departments because of the nature of the constituency, because the constituency is made up of numerous municipalities. The police chiefs of this province have commonly told me over the last period of time and I am sure have commonly told members from all sides of this House that they cannot carry out the services that are being required of them by their citizens because of budget restraints. We know how police chiefs and local municipal leaders felt towards providing security in courtrooms. They have told us this has placed a great burden on their budgets and how they can operate.
1120
We are now going to place on them, I am assuming, another burden because there is no sense in having this particular public policy become law unless it is going to be enforced. I would like to know from the member who has proposed the legislation whether or not we are going to make the funds available for the police chiefs and their departments and the municipalities so that they can enforce the law. Then I would like to know what it will cost, how it will be funded and how that squares with the difficulties we face today regarding the enormous budget deficit that was presented to the House only a few short weeks ago.
I might add that I understand a very large group of people, maybe into the thousands, will be in front of the Legislature later today demanding of the government, and I am assuming demanding of all members of the Legislature, that we be careful with our expenditures. So I would assume that if we are going to increase spending in one area we are going to have to decrease spending or raise taxes. I would like to know what decreases are being proposed and where. If tax increases are necessary, I would like to know on what and how much.
Once that problem is resolved, if we get to that point, I would like to know how police departments are going to deal with the young people, particularly under 14 years of age, because those young people very rarely have summer jobs that allow them to make any kind of income at all, if they are caught in violation of this public policy. Are they going to be ticketed? Are they going to be personally taken home by the police? Are they going to be expected to appear in court if they do not wish to plead guilty or cannot afford to pay the fine?
These are all questions of a practical nature which arise from the reality of such a public policy. While I have to say that the intent is admirable and its full implementation would in fact alleviate many of the terrible things that some members of the Legislature have described, the reality of the situation is that this public policy, along with all other public policy that we debate and bring forward in the House, must be affordable and workable.
Just to bring up another point, there are innumerable groups across the province of Ontario who have lobbied individual members and school boards to have mandatory seatbelts on school buses. As far as I know, there is no public policy enforcing such a rule. I am sure that such a public policy would save lives and reduce injuries. But there is a reason why that public policy has not been passed through this Legislature or adopted by school boards across the province. The reason is the cost involved and the demand for other services within the school system and from the provincial government.
Regretfully, I am going to vote against this piece of legislation, but I intend to keep an open mind when it is referred to committee.
Mr White: You said there was a reason. What is it?
Mr Mancini: I have outlined the reasons in great detail, if the honourable member had only listened.
The Deputy Speaker: Please address the Chair.
Mr Mancini: I will await the answers to all of the questions that I posed this morning. Particularly I will await the answers from the honourable member for Durham Centre. He is so concerned and appears to have all the answers. When we go to committee, I will await his specific answers on these matters, and then I will await the appropriate government ministers, because we will need money from several ministers to make this work.
I am sure that with all of the influence the honourable member for Durham Centre has been able to muster over his few short months here as a new member he will be able to, through the Management Board of Cabinet and through the full cabinet itself, resolve all the practical problems and funding problems that exist around this public policy.
If we are going to be honest to the people who want such legislation passed, then it is incumbent upon us to show these individuals -- and I believe they number in the thousands, maybe tens of thousands -- how the government of the day is going to make such a public policy work, work well, and meet the needs described by members earlier.
Mr McLean: I appreciate having this opportunity to make a few brief comments on private member's Bill 124, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, which would require bicyclists to wear helmets.
I want to compliment my colleague the member for London North for her attempt, and I hope success, to amend subsection 88(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, which, if passed, would read, "No person shall ride on or operate a motorcycle, motor-assisted bicycle or bicycle on a highway unless he or she is wearing a helmet that complies with the regulations and the chin strap of the helmet is securely fastened under the chin."
This legislation was previously brought in some time ago by the same member, and I am pleased to see her bringing it back in today. I believe the member for London North has put a great deal of thought and consideration into this piece of legislation. In fact, it is my understanding that she has the support of the Ontario Head Injury Association, the Bicycle Helmet Coalition, the Hospital for Sick Children and Kiwanis Injury Prevention and Research Program, and the Coalition for Head Injury Prevention, to name but a few distinguished groups.
I think the statistics contained in a brochure published by the Ontario Head Injury Association should make all of us in this Legislature sit up and take notice of the importance of this bill. According to the association, a child is four times more likely to be seriously injured in a bicycle accident than to be kidnapped by a stranger. Bicyclists wearing helmets have an 85% reduction in the risk of a head injury and an 88% reduction in the risk of a brain injury.
More than 80% of accidents causing injuries to children occur less than five blocks from home, and more than 50% of injured children receive no specific safety instructions about bicycling. Seventy-five per cent of all cyclist deaths involve head injuries. That is quite a percentage; a very large number. Ninety-three per cent of children aged six to 16 years ride a bicycle, but only 2% or 3% wear helmets.
It is a known fact that annually in Canada more than 5,000 children are seriously injured and 60 children die in bicycle accidents, most from head injuries. I realize there is no way to predict when an accident will happen, but we can prepare for one. Falls from bicycles can happen anywhere and at any time so it is important to wear a helmet anywhere and at all times, even if it is just in the driveway or just down the street.
1130
We can prepare for accidents by giving private member's Bill 124, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, second reading, and perhaps refer it to the standing committee on resources development or whichever committee is deemed appropriate for fine-tuning.
When this legislation was brought in before, there were reservations because of the mandatory aspect. Issues were brought up by the member for Essex South this morning with regard to people who cannot afford helmets. I have come to the conclusion that we cannot afford not to have helmets nor to assist people to have them.
I know the old railway line that runs from Orillia. Dr Josiah Lawry in Orillia showed some very strong leadership to have this old abandoned railway become a bicycle path or a path for walking which cyclists could use -- a super idea. I think we will see more of this take place across the province.
My wife and I have bicycles. I have not had a helmet, but I am not taking my bicycle out until I get one. The other day I could not find one in the city of Orillia; they had been sold out. So the need is there and I think the people are saying, "Yes, we realize it's time to make this mandatory."
Members should not forget we went through the seatbelt legislation. Nobody wanted to wear seatbelts -- "We don't have to wear seatbelts" -- but statistics proved that great need was there. I never get in my car now without automatically putting my seatbelt on, and I think most people do that. I think bicycle helmets are the same. But it is just as important that helmets be worn in motorized vehicles and all-terrain vehicles, as well as by motorcylists.
When we talk about prevention, that is number one: prevent the injuries and the costs of these head injuries I gave statistics about. What has it cost us in medical expenses over the years? We could buy every child in the province a helmet for what we spend today on the lives of these people who are injured. We cannot afford not to assist them.
I want to compliment the member for bringing this legislation forth and I plead with members to have this sent to committee so we can deal with it there. If they do not like it the way it is, let's change it, but let's put it in place so we can have this legislation approved by this Legislature. Do not think that because it is an opposition bill it is not right. It is right, it is proper, it is appropriate and the time to do it is now.
Mr Lessard: I want to tell the member for London North what a good idea I think this private member's bill is. In fact, I thought it was such a good idea that I was going to steal it and use it myself. However, she beat me to it and I am happy she did, especially now when summer is upon us and there are going to be a lot of people out on their bicycles in the coming weeks and months.
Just to give the House a bit of my background, before coming here I was a member of the Windsor Bicycle Club, a member of the Ontario Cycling Association and also the chairperson of the cycling committee at the city of Windsor. In fact, before the unexpected -- for a lot of people -- events took place on 6 September, I had committed myself to advancing the interests of cyclists. That was going to be what I planned to do in the future, but those plans took a bit of a turn. Now I find that I have an even better opportunity to advance those interests and I am thankful for being given that opportunity here today.
When I was speaking to various individuals and groups involved in cycling, including the Toronto city cycling committee, the Toronto Bicycling Network, the Hospital for Sick Children, the Metro Toronto Safety League and the Ontario Cycling Association, one thing I did find was that there was strong agreement with respect to the fact that cyclists should be encouraged to wear helmets while they are cycling. There is just no doubt about that. The reasons have been advanced here this morning by other members. Quite simply and succinctly, it is based on the statistics. In Ontario, there are at least 15 children who die as a result of cycling accidents every year and there are 150 children who end up in hospital with serious head injuries. Much of this death and injury would be avoided if only there were an investment of about $30 in a helmet that meets the Canadian Standards Association's approval.
There are various ways to encourage cyclists to wear helmets while they are cycling. Of course, we are debating one of the ways this morning, that is, to pass a law making it mandatory for cyclists to wear helmets when they are cycling. There are also other ways this could be done, because as many will admit, and I am sure the member for Essex South would agree, mandatory helmet laws are not always the most popular way to get people to comply with government policy.
Other ways could involve a sales tax rebate or some other type of tax rebate to encourage people to purchase helmets. Another way is that helmets be mandatory accessories at the time a bicycle is purchased. An issue which needs to be addressed as well is ensuring there is an available supply of helmets in the event that a law is passed, because if a law were passed there would, of course, suddenly be a tremendous demand for helmets. Perhaps the implementation of such legislation should be given a long time period to ensure there is that availability.
The issue of law enforcement also has to be taken into consideration. Perhaps there is some room for innovation there as well, and this is something I would encourage the Attorney General to look into: a means to enable people who were caught not wearing helmets to avoid paying a fine if they were to provide proof of the purchase of a helmet within a certain time period, perhaps 48 hours or something like that. It needs to be recognized that if fines were imposed for not wearing a helmet this would not be a means of gaining income for the government; the aim of this type of legislation is to encourage people to wear helmets when they are riding their bicycles, and it is simply that.
One of the most important ways of encouraging people to wear helmets while they are riding bicycles is through education. It should be a requirement in the educational system, part of the curriculum, to teach cyclists responsible riding skills and also to point out to them the benefits of wearing a helmet when they are riding. It also could involve promotion by the Ministry of Transportation, and I would suggest that should also include the Ministry of Health, because this is not strictly an issue involving the Ministry of Transportation -- it is a health concern. The member for Essex South went on at length about the costs that might be incurred by the government to implement mandatory helmet programs, but I would ask him to consider the costs that are incurred for health care by persons who are seriously injured as a result of not wearing helmets. That is something we need to consider. Promotional activities could also be co-ordinated with various retailers.
Of course, what we are doing here today is to educate and encourage people about the importance of hearing a helmet while they are cycling. In that regard, I just want to provide a little demonstration. I would like Hansard to show that I am holding in my hand a hard-shelled plastic helmet. It is an Ansi helmet or a Snell-approved helmet. It is important that a helmet like this is worn properly when riding a bicycle, firmly on top of the head with the chin strap attached underneath fairly snugly so that you can only put a few fingers underneath that chin strap. It is also important that it be down low enough on the forehead so that in the event you go over the handlebars, you would not get an injury to the forehead when you went down.
I think it is important for cyclists to know that when out on their bicycle anything can happen. I can tell members about a personal experience that happened to me. When I was riding my bicycle one day with my wife, I happened to be assaulted.
An hon member: By your wife?
Mr Lessard: Not by my wife. I was assaulted by an inconsiderate motorist who actually ended up spending 20 days in jail as a result, but I did fall on my head. Luckily, I was wearing a helmet and was prevented from injury.
My message to cyclists is that anything can happen. You really need to be prepared out there, and I urge all cyclists to buy a helmet and wear it when they are cycling.
1140
Mr Arnott: I am pleased to again rise today to speak to second reading of Bill 124, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, sponsored by my colleague the member for London North. The intent of this bill is to make the wearing of helmets mandatory by bicyclists on our streets and highways.
I concur with many of the points that have been raised so far in this debate, but I would like to broaden it somewhat and talk about the whole issue of transportation safety. As our party's Transportation critic, I have a great deal of concern that the provincial government could be doing more to promote the cause of transportation safety.
We have to reduce the number of fatalities and accidents on our roads and highways. This bill takes one step towards that end. I am somewhat surprised. When a private member's bill comes forward to this Legislature, generally we have comments from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, the member for Windsor-Sandwich. I have not heard his comments yet, and I am not sure whether he is going to make comments, but generally he reads a speech that has been prepared for him that gives some measure of indication of what the ministry's position is going to be. Frankly, we have not seen that today and I am perplexed. I do not know what the ministry's position is on this.
Something I raised in the House a little while ago that I think pertains to this is that the ministry could provide more incentive towards transportation. The Insurance Bureau of Canada is often involved in the promotion of safety. Quite recently, they committed $100,000 towards radio ads in a campaign towards reducing accidents, a slow-down-and-survive campaign. The ministry contributed $6,000 towards the publication of some brochures; that was, in a way, an endorsement of the campaign and lent it some credibility. But the ministry commitment was very minimal: $6,000 as opposed to $100,000 being put forward by one of the major interest groups who have a considerable interest in transportation safety.
It has come to my attention fairly recently that in a meeting with the Minister of Transportation the insurance bureau indicated its commitment towards another promotional campaign, once again towards the end of increasing highway safety. The ministry has not responded but I hope it will very soon. That was with respect to enhancing seatbelt usage.
If you rank the provinces according to seatbelt usage, right now Ontario is ninth across the country. That is absolutely pathetic and abysmal and I think the ministry has a great deal of work to do in that respect to enhance seatbelt usage across the province.
I would like once again to thank and congratulate and commend the member for London North for her sincere commitment and her sincere approach to this issue. I hope all members will give consideration to supporting it.
Mr Mills: I am going to be very brief to give my colleague an opportunity to comment on this bill. I commend it.
In my retirement plans, which somehow got untracked, I intended to go to Vancouver and buy a bicycle and cycle completely across Canada. I bought this book to do that, to learn about it. It is interesting to read that rider error causes 75% of the accidents. Vehicle driver error causes 10%.
The author of this book is a very famous person and an authority on bicyling, Eugene A. Sloan. He talks about a helmet, saying, "I would not go two feet on my bicycle without a helmet on my head." I think that speaks for all of us here.
I rode a bicycle in England. I was brought up on a bicycle when it was not the cool thing to do. We rode the bicycle out of necessity, to work, to church, to court. We went everywhere on a bicycle. I must say that I took a number of spills. There are tram lines in England, and I have been down for the count from two hours to three days. Some people may think that all those blows on the head account for my behaviour here today. Nevertheless, I endorse the bill.
I have some concerns about enforcement. I have some concerns about poor people not being able to afford it, as the member for Essex South said. I am very concerned about that. I am confident we can work all these things out when it gets to the resources committee.
With that, I will sit down and let my colleague, who is also a keen cyclist, finish off our time.
Mr G. Wilson: Thanks to my colleague for allowing me a bit of time. As he suggested, I am a keen cyclist. In fact, I cycled to work in Kingston for 10 or so years and certainly raised our two kids on the back of a bicycle, as it were.
I am glad to stand in support of this bill because of its drawing attention to the need for helmets. I went for a number of years without a bicycle helmet and have reformed to the extent of buying one recently. I am no longer going two feet without a helmet, either, and have arranged to get helmets for the rest of the family as well, because we think it is a very important step to be taken to make bicycling safer.
However, while this bill certainly points to what an individual can do to make bicycling safer, I do want to mention what we as a society have to do to make it safer, and that is to create space on our congested roads for bicyclists. To that end, I am pleased to say that the city of Kingston has established a bicycling advisory committee to look to promoting the use of the bicycle as a major form of transportation in Kingston and area for reasons of health, fitness, pollution reduction, energy conservation and even to create more parking space. They also see it as a way of promoting tourism, that the safer our streets are, the more congenial it is to ride bicyles. It is a very good way of seeing the city, on a bicycle. However, as the member for London is pointing out, one should do it with a helmet. Making sure that helmets are available when we rent bicycles would be one way of doing it.
Mrs Caplan: We just have about a minute left on this debate. I want to congratulate all the members in the House for participating in this discussion.
There are a couple of issues, however, of real concern. It is easy to vote in principle for things that make a lot of sense, like protecting children who are riding on bicycles. One question I would have is that of enforcement. How would you enforce this? I think that is something that has to be asked as the bill goes forward.
Second, how would you provide helmets to those children who simply cannot afford one? That is a real problem. We have children today in difficult situations. I would not want to see a bill like this go forward unless there was some debate and discussion around ensuring that no child was going to be told he could not ride a bicycle because he could not afford a helmet. That is an extremely important part of the debate and I did not hear a lot of discussion on that today. I would hope before we all stood up in principle to say that this is a great idea, we realize it will have a negative impact as well.
1150
Mr Turnbull: I very much wanted to speak today to compliment my colleague the member for London North and the other speakers. This is a very important subject in my estimation.
I remember around 1965 when Volvo brought out a car in which safety belts and headrests were to be standard equipment. That was a peculiarity in the auto world at the time. Slowly, other auto makers were encouraged to do this, and then finally we had legislation. Since the legislation mandating car seatbelts was introduced, we have seen a singular drop in the number of fatalities and serious injuries in cars. I think we have to apply the same sort of rule to the head injuries which occur when people fall off bicycles for whatever reason.
With regard to the cost, I do not think we can afford not to make sure that this is mandated. It costs approximately $500 a day for those children who go to the US to have head injuries treated. We send literally hundreds of children each year to the US for treatment of head injuries, so this is money that would be well invested. When we look at hockey nowadays, it is against the rules for children to play without helmets, and that has been a significant fact or in reducing injuries.
I want to applaud my colleague for bringing in Bill 124 amending section 88 of the Highway Traffic Act. I hope we can send this quickly out to committee to make sure that any problems there may be with the bill can be ironed out.
Mrs Cunningham: In the short time left, I would like to add a few comments with regard to the great concerns of the member for Essex South. I shall try very hard to get his support today, and certainly that of the member for Oriole.
When one talks about affordable and workable, all I can say as the mother of a head-injured son -- there is only one thing to say: You cannot afford not to wear a bicycle helmet. The amount of money that goes into rehabilitation, and the quality of family life and of that child's life or adult's life, no one could ever put a price on. That is the simple answer. The statistics are there now. Even seven years ago or five years ago I would never have asked for the members' support, but this year I ask for it because we have done our homework.
As far as workable, I can tell members right now that we have to make it work. The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations has written me a letter, along with many, many others. I could not begin to read them into the record. The association's very first resolution says,
"Be it resolved that the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations adopt the policy that all cyclists regardless of age and passengers transported in bicycle-mounted child carriers be legislated to wear bicycle helmets." This is their very first resolution, number 9, 1991.
We do have some precedents that we can look at when this bill is in committee, and I sincerely hope we can get it into committee. I will pass those comments to the member for Essex South, who has been here a long time. I cannot solve problems if we do not have a committee to look at the enforceability. Let's at least get it to committee so we can talk about it seriously.
In New Jersey, for a person 16 years of age or older who violates the act, there is a maximum $25 fine for the first offence and $100 for a subsequent offence. That is 16 or over. Under 16, interestingly, they may be fined, but really it is the responsibility of the legal guardian, and for subsequent offences after the first or second warning it is $100. That money goes into a bicycle safety fund for two reasons: education programs and to support children who cannot buy their own helmets. That is something for us to look at.
We will talk about the phasing in. In Australia, a plan started on 1 January 1991 and is now in effect for adults older than 16. There is a phase-in period of six months to see how it works. I think we have to talk about these kinds of things in committee.
I have to tell the members that I really appreciate the support of the members today, especially the member for Windsor-Walkerville, who did a wonderful demonstration that we can use on tape. In the future, we will not have to spend any money putting a tape together around how one puts on a bike helmet.
I will also say that I really appreciate the support of the members for Durham East, Simcoe Centre, Kingston and The Islands, Simcoe East, Wellington and York Mills, as well as many other members who have come to support this legislation and have told me that they really are looking forward to the opportunity to discuss this in the standing committee on resources development.
I am looking right at the member for Essex South and saying, "Give us that opportunity," because we will not go any further if we do not get it. This bill went to committee of the whole this time last year and died. We cannot afford to have that happen this time.
I will tell members that the Premier called me yesterday morning and wished me the best and said he would be supporting the legislation as well. I really very much appreciate that kind of support.
Since I still have a minute and 55 seconds, I will go to work on the member for Essex South. I will give him some more information. First of all, I have to have a bit of fun here right now. One of the things I was against when it came to the costs for policing in this province last year was the bill that the member and his government supported with regard to courtroom supervision. So it is very difficult to stand up today and say that some of the acts that we pass in this Legislative Assembly will in fact pass responsibilities down to the local councils. This one passes the responsibility on to families.
I would hope in committee that we can take a look at the member's very real concerns. In fun, I ask him for his support because I really think the only way we are going to get answers to his questions is for all of us in this Legislative Assembly to ask the experts and to ask families and children to come to us and tell us what the great barriers will be. One group that I would really like to point out is the Toronto city cycling committee that has already put forth some seven concerns that we should be considering in committee.
Our approach in this Legislative Assembly is to answer people who have positive criticism, because I think in Ontario we want the best legislation, legislation that will prevent head injuries, that will support families, that will be affordable and that will be workable. The process I ask all members to support today is one of openness, one with integrity and one where we can find solutions to a very real problem, the problem of young people suffering head injuries because they do not wear helmets in the province of Ontario.
LEGISLATIVE REFORM
The House divided on Mr Callahan's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes -- 44
Arnott, Bisson, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Carr, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Dadamo, Drainville, Fawcett, Frankford, Harnick, Haslam, Hayes, Henderson, Huget, Johnson, Jordan, Klopp, Lessard, Mammoliti, Marland, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch, B., O'Connor, O'Neil, H., Poirier, Poole, Ruprecht, Silipo, Stockwell, Sutherland, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Ward, B., Waters, White, Wilson, J., Wiseman.
Nays -- 19
Abel, Cooper, Coppen, Ferguson, Gigantes, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hope, MacKinnon, Martin, Mills, Owens, Pouliot, Sterling, Ward, M., Wessenger, Wilson, G., Winninger.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE
The Deputy Speaker: We will now deal with ballot item 30, standing in the name of Mrs Cunningham.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
Bill referred to the standing committee on resources development.
Le projet de loi est déféré au Comité permanent du développement des ressources.
The House recessed at 1209.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The House resumed at 1330.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
KEN GRANT
Mr McGuinty: It is my special pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to a most remarkable constituent of mine, Ken Grant.
Ken "The General" Grant is the morning show host for CFRA, a radio station serving Ottawa and the valley. On 23 June 1991, Ken marked his 30th anniversary with CFRA, making him the second longest running morning show host in Canadian history. That, in and of itself, is a remarkable feat but there is much more to Ken than his radio work.
Ken is a dedicated community volunteer. Ken was instrumental in bringing the Jerry Lewis Telethon to Canada in 1970. He has been the Ottawa segment host each year since then, and his efforts have played a major part in raising the more than $7.5 million in contributions raised to date.
Ken founded the CFRA Happy Blunderers softball team in 1961, which has raised over $250,000 for charities over the years. Ken has also worked in a fundraising capacity for the Canadian Cancer Society, the Amethyst Women's Addiction Centre, Big Brothers, the Royal Ottawa Hospital Foundation, the Canadian Hunger Foundation, St Brigid's Soup Kitchen and the Shepherds of Good Hope, to name but a few.
Ken makes over 200 public appearances each year, and all fees raised by him are turned over to local charities. Through his work on radio and as a volunteer, Ken has become much more than an Ottawa personality. He has in fact become part of Ottawa's personality, a part that is kind, warm, gentle and full of good humour.
I am honoured to have Ken as a constituent, and I am sure the members of this House will join me in congratulating Ken for the outstanding contribution he has made to the Ottawa community.
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES
Mr Sterling: The occasion that prompted me to make a member's statement today is one that every parent in our province and every member of this Legislature who is a parent can easily relate to, that moment when your heart swells with pride as you see your child walk across the stage to receive his or her high school diploma.
For the second and last time in my life, I experienced that feeling last night, when my daughter, Sara, graduated from South Carleton High School in Richmond, Ontario. I could not help but think how much better prepared young people are today than we were when we walked across a similar stage many years ago.
Sara was educated in the French immersion program, allowing her to qualify for a diploma in both English and French, an opportunity we certainly did not have as children. Through her school and community activities, my daughter, at 19 years old, has already travelled extensively, has experience being a page in this Legislative Assembly and done many things that were unheard-of before. She, like many other students today, worked part-time throughout high school and has had the advantage of trying out various sports, cultural activities and social environments.
We in this Legislature think about the recession and our country splitting apart, yet I could not help but feel confident about our future when I experienced the maturity of our young people last night. On behalf of all parents, I would like to congratulate our high school graduates, the class of 1991. I wish them every success and happiness in the future.
EVENTS IN DURHAM WEST
Mr Wiseman: I rise today to inform the House of two important events that happened in my riding. The first event was the graduation ceremonies of nine women from the Canadian Jobs Strategy program, a training course in Oshawa. This event is significant because it was a program funded by the government to help women on government assistance develop computer skills that would enable them to return to the workforce in a meaningful way. For these women, this was achieved by overcoming considerable hardship. These women should be applauded and their success emulated by others. They had to work hard to reacquire the skills associated with going back to school. I wish them every success in the future.
My second event has to do with the annual Ajax Home Week. This is a week of fun-filled events for all members of the family, from kite-flying to parades, pancake breakfasts and culminating in an excellent fireworks display. None of these events can take place without an array of volunteers who work behind the scenes to make them happen.
On behalf of myself, my family, all the residents of Ajax and those who returned to Ajax or visited Ajax during the week, I would like to thank the volunteers from the service clubs and in particular Sue Bland, who was this year's chair.
LABOUR POLICY
Mr Offer: The Minister of Labour has finished his first nine months in office, nine months of turmoil, mismanagement and disappointment for everyone in the province. During the election the member for York South, the then Leader of the Opposition, promised a minimum wage geared to 60% of the average industrial wage. The Minister of Labour is the minister charged with implementing pay equity for women, which his leader promised to extend to every woman in the province. Yet he is now hoping only to implement a plan that would still exclude over 100,000 women across the province. Now the Minister of Labour has made the whole province panic with his package of labour law proposals, in which he refuses to allow public input. He will not allow consultations this summer. Instead, he will keep them clutched guardedly to himself until the legislation is presented to the House and another backlash develops like the one against Bill 70.
Bill 70 sums up exactly the problem with this NDP government. To the detriment of the provincial economy and the people who want to be part of it, they are fixated on job compensation when the problem is job loss. The Labour Minister introduced wage protection legislation without precedent and without consultation with affected sectors that was so punitive against private individuals and charities that the government had to recant. People in Ontario who work for a living want paycheques more than severance cheques. When is this Minister of Labour going to make this his number one priority?
DEFIBRILLATION EQUIPMENT
Mr Eves: In March of 1991, the base hospital program of Sarnia was funded $120,000 by the Ministry of Health to provide a semiautomatic defibrillation program for victims of cardiac arrest in Lambton county. Today this equipment still sits idle because after the equipment was purchased and approved by the Ministry of Health, the ministry is now demanding that Lambton county adopt a 911 number, even though a public access emergency number already exists and all requirements were met when the equipment was purchased in March. Surely the minister agrees that as long as this equipment sits unused, this is another example of waste within her ministry.
The only requirement by the Ministry of Health was that Lambton county have "an efficient communications, user-friendly emergency telephone access such as 911." Those were the instructions given and one of the conditions upon which the purchase of this equipment was approved. Part of the area served by this emergency service does have a 911 number, ie the city of Sarnia, and the other part of it has an emergency access number, which is widely publicized. Will the minister please look into this matter and ensure that this equipment does not sit idle any longer?
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr White: I rise to speak of the trilateral free trade negotiations. The economic risks of these potential arrangements are horrendous, yet those negotiations are being fast-tracked. The economy of Ontario has been decimated as a result of the bilateral free trade. Mr Mulroney rolled the dice and Ontario lost big. Many business people and politicians who were formerly neutral or even supportive of bilateral free trade have changed their minds significantly.
In early 1988, Oshawa city council voted by a very narrow margin to support the bilateral free trade negotiations. The councillors and people of Oshawa now know the results of free trade. They know from the plant closures and job losses in their community. The city of Oshawa, other municipalities and the regional municipality of Durham voted most unanimously, and one only overwhelmingly, to oppose the trilateral free trade negotiations.
The councillors of Oshawa have the wisdom and maturity, even the courage, to acknowledge their mistakes and learn from them. The city of Oshawa wishes the federal government could learn from its mistakes rather than simply repeating them time and again.
1340
ONTARIO-QUEBEC PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION / ASSOCIATION PARLEMENTAIRE ONTARIO-QUÉBEC
Mr Morin: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to announce the first meeting of the Ontario-Quebec Parliamentary Association. This meeting will take place tomorrow morning, Friday 28 June, in Ottawa. This association is unique. It brings forth members of the legislatures of Ontario and Quebec with the aim of fostering friendship, goodwill and mutual understanding between both provinces. It seeks also to enhance co-operation with regard to common areas of concern. The fields of legislation, culture, economics, science and technology will undoubtedly benefit from such co-operation.
We can learn many things from our neighbours to the east, as they can also from us. Both Ontario and Quebec are committed to improving their citizens' standard of living.
Toute initiative visant un rapprochement entre l'Ontario et le Québec mérite d'être soulignée. L'ouverture des voies de communication entre les deux provinces permettra une plus grande concertation en matières législative, sociale, économique, bref, en toute matière pertinente à nos intérêts. L'Association parlementaire Ontario-Québec est appelée à jouer un rôle important dans les relations entre le Québec et l'Ontario.
For these reasons, the creation of the Ontario-Quebec Parliamentary Association is long overdue. Friday's meeting will provide us with a first opportunity to get know each other in a spirit of friendship and conviviality.
MINISTERIAL PERFORMANCE
Mr Stockwell: Here is a brief assessment, a report card, if you will, on the NDP government at the end of the first session.
The Premier gets an F though his term paper, An Agenda for People, was a solid effort at political fiction; performance hampered by poor leadership skills, lousy memory and convenient double standard; will soon be expelled.
The Treasurer: Needs a refresher course in economics and remedial work in math. His marks, like our credit rating, have been downgraded.
The Solicitor General: Has trouble accepting responsibility; keeps telling us that the dog ate his homework.
The Minister of the Environment: Very weak in the 3Rs; seems to think they mean recant, reverse and retreat; has to improve or will be recycled.
The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: We were not expecting to have to have to evaluate her today. We will have to get back to you tomorrow.
The Minister of Tourism and Recreation: Always appreciates being questioned; unfortunately never knows any of the answers.
The Minister of Community and Social Services: A neat appearance does not hide a mouldy performance that has pulled the rug from under her playmates.
The Minister of Education: Has a real fear of tests; would not win an Ontario scholarship even if she had not wiped them out.
The Minister of Colleges and Universities tells tales out of school.
The Minister of Labour: Failure to listen resulted in massive rewrite of first major assignment; likely will not be promoted.
The Minister of Transportation: A Rhodes scholar on the road to nowhere; must do better or will be ditched.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology: Very good at nap time and recess.
JIM GREY
Mr Hope: Today I would like to bring the attention of this House to a local hero in my riding, a young local hero I must add, whose name is Jim Grey and his age is 93. Through the years he has been fighting in the county of Chatham-Kent for a 911 system. This young gentleman has spent numerous hours and a large amount of money to give the people of Kent county a 911 system.
He began a personal campaign in the early 1980s to lobby the public officers in the local area. He spent $7,000 of his own money on advertisements for public awareness. Most recently, Mr Grey pushed for Kent county to study the implementation of a 911 plan.
Finally his contributions have been noticed. Last week I had the pleasure of presenting him with the National Emergency Number Association service award in honour of his dedication towards 911 and its promotion.
There are people in our community who have the capability of performing such worthy jobs, and not for political gain. I am sure that at the age of 93 Mr Grey has identified his concerns in making sure that the public's interest is well in hand and that in times of frustration the citizens can easily push 911 instead of going through the yellow pages to try to find the number.
ESTIMATES
Hon Ms Lankin: I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.
The Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending 31 March 1992 and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.
Mr Turnbull: With your permission, Mr Speaker, do I have unanimous consent of the House for a statement on Terry Fox?
The Speaker: Unanimous consent is required. Do we have unanimous consent?
Agreed to.
TERRY FOX
Mr Turnbull: Tomorrow, Friday 28 June, is the 10th anniversary of the death of Terry Fox.
It is an honour to rise in the House today to pay tribute to the memory of this young man who has come to exemplify the word "courage," not only for Canadians but for people around the world. Members will recall the courage that Terry Fox showed the world as he ran from Newfoundland to Thunder Bay before cancer brought to a halt his Marathon of Hope.
His determination to do something about a cause he believed in has meant that his name will live for ever whenever heroes are mentioned. Terry believed that anything is possible, that "dreams are made if people only try."
Well, he tried. He had a dream that some day he and thousands of others could be cured of cancer. He wanted to raise enough money so that researchers could find a cure. The challenge was completely daunting, but still he went ahead. Terry Fox believed anything is possible. He said of cancer, "Somewhere the hurting must stop."
Members will recall his lonely run across the country, starting in Newfoundland and ending tragically in Thunder Bay when cancer finally overcame him. That was his Marathon of Hope.
The Marathon of Hope continues today in the form of the Terry Fox Run which takes place every September around the world. In this way, dedicated individuals and organizations have kept Terry's dream alive. Over the past 10 years they have raised the incredible amount of over $90 million for cancer research.
In paying tribute to Terry Fox as a truly outstanding Canadian, I want to quote some of his own words. He said:
"I guess that one of the most important things I've learned is that nothing is ever completely bad. Even cancer. It's made me a better person. It's given me courage and a sense of purpose I never had before. But you don't have to do like I did, wait until you lose a leg or get some awful disease before you take the time to find out what kind of stuff you're really made of. You can start now. Anybody can."
Terry was only 22 when he died of cancer, the dreaded disease which strikes indiscriminately at young and old, rich and poor, but he changed people's attitudes towards cancer and the disabled. He showed that while cancer had claimed his leg, it could not break his spirit.
I encourage all members to participate this September in the Terry Fox Run to raise funds for cancer research and especially to honour the memory of Terry Fox, a great Canadian and a great inspiration to us all.
Hon Ms Lankin: On behalf of my colleagues, I would also like to mark the memory of a fine young Canadian, one who in dying young still left us with a remarkable legacy of courage and tenacity that is remembered throughout the world.
Terry Fox blazed a trail across Canada and into our hearts. Today is the 10th anniversary of the day Terry succumbed to cancer. It is hard to believe. He seems so close to us. I think that is an indication of the important, continuing and, yes, living contribution to our awareness of the need for cancer research and an eventual cure.
Terry Fox had the courage to give a face to cancer, to help humanize the plight of cancer patients, and in doing so he has left an indelible legend. Although his time with us was short, he provided his parents and the rest of Canada with a source of inspiration and pride. Perhaps at the end of these statements, I could ask the House to join with me in a moment of silence commemorating Terry Fox's contribution to all of us.
1350
Mr Phillips: I am honoured to have the opportunity to respond on behalf of our party.
It is rather a unique name. When you say "Terry Fox," it instantly conjures in each of us, I think, some very positive memories. There are very few people in this world who do that. Certainly when I heard that I would have this opportunity, I thought about the things I remember about Terry Fox. There was a line in the paper just last week that caught part of the flavour, and it said, "The haunting vision of the handsome, one-legged athlete, his face set in determination as he runs alone down the country's highways still lives with most of us." Certainly I think how the courage he displayed lifted me at the time.
I think he chose the term "Marathon of Hope" quite deliberately. One of his famous sayings was that dreams are made if people try, certainly for people with physical disabilities.
I remember when he went through Scarborough. There were a number of young people with physical disabilities. As they watched him go by, you could almost see their attitudes changing. They said, "Certainly if he can do it, I can do it." I think he made a substantial difference in that respect. His vision of the country, the fact that he started in Newfoundland and planned to head to British Columbia, for all of us was almost a visual demonstration of this country. As my colleagues have said, his contribution to cancer research, of course, was well known.
There is a saying that I carry with me. If the House will indulge me, I would like to read it. It is in the male gender. If members would interpret it in both genders I would appreciate it, because this is how it was written. It says: "It is not the critic who counts, nor the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." Certainly Terry Fox knew victory.
The Speaker: I invite all members, and indeed our visitors in the galleries, to join in a moment of silence.
The House observed a moment of silence.
The Speaker: I would inform members that the kind and thoughtful remarks as expressed today will be forwarded to Terry Fox's family, and of course our deepest sympathies along with them.
VISITOR
Mrs Marland: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I know the members would like to recognize the presence in the members' gallery of Mayor Hazel McCallion of the city of Mississauga and regional chairman Frank Bean from the region of Peel.
Mr Sola: Mr Speaker, I would like to request unanimous consent to make a statement on the declaration of independence by Croatia and Slovenia on 25 June.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I am afraid there is not.
Mr Sola: I will then ask for a point of personal privilege to make the statement, because this is something that touches me personally, it touches my riding, it touches many people of various ethnic backgrounds in Ontario and in Canada. One can check Hansard on a daily basis and see similar statements made for various other communities.
The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga East, I certainly understand and appreciate the issue that he feels most strongly about. The precedents and the standing orders in this House dictate that we have unanimous consent for these types of statements, so unfortunately I am not able to grant your request on this occasion.
Mr Sola: I would like to ask one more time for unanimous consent.
Agreed to.
CROATIAN AND SLOVENIAN INDEPENDENCE
Mr Sola: I thank members very much. Any controversial statements that may be in here, I will try to leave out. I have tried to make this a statement that will not be offensive to any community in Ontario or in Canada.
As a Canadian with Croatian roots, I am compelled to comment on the historic happenings in the land of my birth. It is with great pride that I report to this House the declaration of independence by the republics of Croatia and Slovenia on 25 June.
This is the culmination of a series of events beginning with the first free, democratic elections in these republics last year, observed by members of this House, when the forces of democracy and independence won an overwhelming mandate. A referendum in both republics last month resulted in a resounding vote of confidence, over 94%, for the democratic governments and their quest for independence. It is time for all who uphold democratic rights and freedoms to come forward to cheer the triumph of democracy as expressed in Croatia and Slovenia.
Can Yugoslavia survive when it has blocked Stipe Mesic's assumption to the rotating presidency, cancelled the autonomy of the provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina while retaining their vote, and abused human rights in every republic and province?
There are several other statements I had prepared that I will leave out just in case they may be too controversial.
Yugoslavia, like all nations, if it intends to survive, must comply with its own Constitution. The above list clearly demonstrates it has not. This has propelled Croatians and Slovenians towards their independence.
By giving recognition to Croatia and Slovenia, we are not taking sides, only stating the obvious: the right of people to self-determination. Free and democratic societies provide the right atmosphere in which people can live as neighbours seeking their destiny to raise families and work in harmony with others. For example, prior to the forced creation of Yugoslavia, Croats and Serbs lived for centuries as good neighbours.
We cannot turn back the clock of history. We must accept the challenge of independence and encourage the peaceful resolution of all disputes that have festered too long in these proud communities. How we handle this challenge will foretell how we resolve similar movements towards democratic and free societies.
I urge support from all members for the democratic movement that we are witnessing in Slovenia and Croatia. For us, earlier signals of self-determination displayed in Tiananmen Square and in the Baltics were lights of hope. Let this hope remind us of the need to continue to promote freedom for all peoples of the world.
I thank the members of this House for their generosity.
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY
MINIMUM WAGE
Hon Mr Mackenzie: As the House knows, this government has worked hard to introduce fairness and equality into all of our initiatives. This commitment includes an attempt to eliminate poverty in Ontario. We believe it is only when all the people have better access to everything this province has to offer and an equal chance to participate in the life of the province that we will live in a just and equitable society.
To achieve this, our government has undertaken an important antipoverty strategy. Elements of this have already been announced in the budget. For example, the Treasurer has already announced the largest enrichment in the history of the Ontario tax reduction program, which will result in an additional $50 million in reduced taxes for low-income earners. These tax reforms are designed to achieve greater equity in the tax system and to provide tax relief for low-income families.
We have also committed $215 million on a full-year basis to the revitalization of social assistance reform. This funding will be used to provide benefits to those in greatest need, to help people get into the labour force, to increase fairness and accessibility and to assist municipalities with their funding responsibilities.
Another important component of our antipoverty strategy is the revision of Ontario's minimum wage rates. Historically, minimum wage revisions have attempted to compensate our province's lowest wage earners for their loss of purchasing power. Ontario's current minimum wage of $5.40 an hour, however, does not reflect consumer price increases that have taken place over the last 15 years.
1400
Between 1975 and 1990, the consumer price index for Ontario rose by 179% while the minimum wage increased by only 125%. This has meant not only that minimum wage earners have been unable to keep up with increasing costs, but also that their purchasing power has slipped further and further behind. Clearly, this situation cannot be allowed to continue.
There are currently more than 160,000 workers at or near the minimum wage in this province; that is, more than 4% of our workforce. Minimum wage earners make only 48% of the 1989 average wage. If I can put that in perspective, that means these workers are trying to take care of themselves, and in many cases their families too, on less than $12,000 a year.
Minimum wage earners are not only struggling to survive on an income that most of us would find impossible to live on; they also tend to be among the most vulnerable members of the workforce in the province. Revisions to the minimum wage provide these workers with practically the only means they have of getting a wage increase, because they generally find it impossible to negotiate increases for themselves.
The increases I am about to announce will, we believe, have an important impact on working women as 57% of minimum wage earners today are women, 5% of the total female workforce. This increase will reach some women before pay equity increases by other means can be achieved and will directly benefit those not covered under the legislation.
In addition, more than 20,000 people who are currently working and receiving social assistance top-ups will earn more money from the minimum wage increase. This will either eliminate their need to receive social assistance or will reduce the amount paid to them in social assistance.
Students will also benefit from these changes. A differential has been in place since 1973 which has allowed employers to pay one group of students a lower wage than another group of students. The factor permitting this is age. At present, a student under the age of 18 could be paid 85 cents an hour less than a student over the age of 18. That just cannot work in a society that promises equality and fairness. In fact, the existence of the student differential is currently before the courts in a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and recently our neighbouring provinces, Manitoba and Quebec, recognized this inequality and eliminated their differentials.
It is as part of our government's antipoverty strategy that we announce the following revision of minimum wage rates.
The minimum wage will be increased by 60 cents, bringing it to an hourly rate of $6. This is a first step towards increasing the minimum wage to the level of 60% of the average wage.
The 1991 increases, which usually come into effect on October 1, will now take effect on 1 November so that most seasonal work can be completed at one wage rate.
We will reduce the student differential by 40 cents this year. This will bring the student wage to $5.55. In 1992, the differential will be eliminated altogether.
Room and meal allowances, which employers may deduct from minimum wage earnings where lodging and food is provided to workers, will be increased by the same percentage increase as the general minimum wage.
Half- and full-day minimum wage rates for hunting and fishing guides will be increased from $27 and $54 to $30 and $60.
The minimum wage for harvest workers will also increase to $6. As in previous years, this change will take place in January.
Finally, the current liquor servers differential, which allows employers to pay liquor servers 50 cents less than the minimum wage, will remain but will be reviewed in the coming year.
As honourable members will recall, in the November throne speech we set out as our target a minimum wage that will reflect 60% of the average wage by 1995. My announcement today is a first major step in achieving that target. The pace and level of future minimum wage increments will be decided in the context of such factors as prevailing economic conditions and other government initiatives benefiting lower-paid workers. The revisions will of course be determined as a result of ongoing consultations with labour, business and other groups.
GARBAGE DISPOSAL
Hon Mrs Grier: I met earlier today with the chairpersons of the greater Toronto area or their representatives. I would now like to inform the Legislature of this government's plan to deal with the GTA waste crisis. After events here yesterday, I am going to set the record straight.
Clearly the attempts of the past two provincial governments fell far short of the goal of solving waste problems in the GTA. Three existing sites currently handle most of the waste from Metropolitan Toronto, York, Peel and Durham. They are Brittania Road, Brock West and Keele Valley. Brittania Road and Brock West reach their original design capacity in 1992 and Keele Valley in 1994.
The earliest we can expect to have long-term sites open is 1995. Therefore, we must act now to deal with the gap between the closure of existing sites and the opening long-term sites. The prospect of having nowhere to dispose of waste is too great a risk to the health, environment and economy of the regions. This is a risk I will not take. I have no choice but to use the emergency powers provided in the Environmental Protection Act to ensure there will be continuing garbage disposal capacity in the GTA until we get the long-term sites operational.
I am directing the regional municipality of Peel to implement a lift at the Brittania Road landfill site to be operational by 1992 and I am also directing the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to implement a lift at the Keele Valley site to be operational by 1994. A lift adds height and capacity to each landfill but does not expand its boundaries. I am not directing the implementation of a lift at Brock West. This site is not considered environmentally acceptable for extra capacity. The region of Durham will have to build a transfer station to facilitate the transfer of waste to Keele Valley.
I will require the regional governments to undertake detailed studies of the environmental impacts of the lifts at Brittania Road and Keele Valley. Given the nature of the emergency, we have no time for the full environmental assessment process on these interim measures.
Public liaison committees representing communities adjacent to the two lift sites will be invited to monitor and advise on the engineering studies and implementation of the lifts. Our government will ensure that the maximum degree of public consultation is carried out, given the tight time constraints under which we will be operating.
The need for and duration of these interim facilities are directly related to the success or failure of everyone's efforts to reduce wastes. The regional municipalities have a key role. This fall, I will introduce legislation to give both authority and responsibility for 3Rs activities to the regional governments in the GTA. The waste reduction office will co-ordinate the preparation of GTA waste reduction action plans and we have already initiated discussions with the GTA regional municipalities on funding implementation of these plans as well as funding 3Rs capital expenditures.
The Interim Waste Authority Ltd has been established to find three landfill sites, one in Durham, one in Peel and one within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto and the region of York. The searches will follow the principles of the environmental assessment process. Consulting teams have been hired by the authority to begin the site search and to design and implement the public consultation program. Details on the waste reduction programs and on the site search are available in an action plan I released today.
As I told the Legislature yesterday, I did not create this crisis but I am going to solve this crisis and I am going to manage this crisis.
Mr Sorbara: Stupid, stupid.
The Speaker: Order. The member for York Centre, I appreciate your enthusiasm. The vocabulary is not appreciated.
Mr Sorbara: You mean appropriate.
The Speaker: Oh, well.
1410
LIMITATIONS REFORM
Hon Mr Hampton: I am pleased to announce today that I am releasing a consultation draft of a proposed new Limitations Act. It is my intention to engage in active public consultation about these proposals over the summer and to return to the assembly with a bill that will promote and protect the interests of all parties engaged in civil litigation.
Limitations law affects virtually every civil proceeding commenced in our courts. However, much of that law is three centuries old. In recent years there have been numerous proposals for reform. Just weeks ago the Court of Appeal for Ontario expressed strong concern about the confusion, uncertainty and injustice arising from the present Limitations Act and the limitations provisions in other statutes and called for urgent review and revision.
The proposals and the discussion draft reflect the recommendation of the Attorney General's Limitations Act consultation group, which was established in December 1989 and which presented its report to me in April of this year. The draft bill is designed to achieve a new, modern balance between the competing rights of plaintiffs and defendants. Access to justice is enhanced for plaintiffs by ensuring that, as a general rule, their claims are not barred before they have knowledge of them. Establishing an ultimate limitation period after which most claims cannot be brought recognizes the defendant's need for certainty, which is the fundamental purpose of all limitations law.
We propose to replace dozens of archaic, confusing and unjust limitation periods with a single limitation period of two years that would not begin until the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to commence proceedings. Only if a party did not discover a claim until after 30 years might the claim be finally barred. A shorter period of 10 years could apply in the case of medical negligence or building deficiencies.
While there are many pressing and legitimate reasons for limitations reform, none is more urgent than the need to remove the barriers to justice for sexual assault victims. In far too many cases, the limitation period expires before the victim recovers sufficiently from the trauma of a sexual assault to be able to cope with legal proceedings.
We propose that there be no limitation period whatsoever where a sexual assault has taken place in a relationship of trust or dependency. In other types of sexual assault or assault in a relationship of intimacy or dependency, there would still be a limitation period, but the victim could be presumed to be incapable of commencing the proceedings. Thus, in order to bar the claim, the defendant would have to show that the victim had for at least two years been capable of commencing the proceedings. Limitation periods would generally not run against persons under the age of 18 years or persons who are incapable of commencing legal proceedings.
Another concern is the impact of limitation periods in cases of environmental harm. Under the consultation draft proposals, legal proceedings could be barred after 30 years. However, we recognize that this issue will benefit from fuller public discussion.
At this time I would like to thank the Limitations Act consultation group, whose membership included representatives of the Ontario women's directorate, the Canadian Bar Association, persons with disabilities, building designers and contractors, hospitals, doctors and municipalities. This draft bill is the product of its careful deliberations. Now, however, I invite the members of the assembly and all concerned citizens throughout the province to comment on the consultation draft and to assist the government in determining the directions of limitations reform. Whether they support the proposal or have concerns, it is equally important that I have their views.
The Speaker: Statements by ministers? Responses.
Mr Beer: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: There were three, indeed four, minutes left on the clock when you asked for further ministerial statements. Shortly before the House came into session today, the Minister of Education released a press release which deals with a most important precedent that the minister has set with respect to the Ottawa-Carleton French-language School Board.
I believe that my privileges as a member and indeed as a critic are infringed by the fact that the government, with sufficient time, did not have a statement for the minister to make in this House. I ask for unanimous consent to allow the minister to make a statement. I further ask that time be added to the opposition responses for that statement.
The Speaker: The member brings before me two distinct matters. One, of course, is to ask for unanimous consent for a statement to be made, and I am quite pleased to put that question in a moment. The second, of course, is the question about what is not said in the chamber, and over that I have no control. I appreciate the member's bringing this to my attention. I will ask the House, is there unanimous consent for a statement to be made by the Minister of Education? Agreed.
Agreed to.
The Speaker: The time will be added to it, not to worry.
Mr Ruprecht: Mr Speaker, also on a point of personal privilege: I think my rights as a member have been infringed. Yesterday and today we learned in the Toronto Star that this government and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation are backing Expo 98's bid. There are five minutes left on the clock and I would consequently ask, as well, unanimous consent that the Minister of Tourism and Recreation be permitted to make the statement that has obviously been made in the press to determine especially that this is --
The Speaker: We will have the same routine --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Now that I have captured your attention, the member for Parkdale raises a similar matter and of course I will pose the same question.
Interjections.
Mr Ruprecht: Those guys are making the policy without our being able to respond. What is it? Is it ignorance?
The Speaker: The member for Parkdale, come to order. Is there unanimous consent for a statement to be made by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation?
Some hon members: No.
Negatived.
The Speaker: All right, the Minister of Education.
Interjections.
Mr Ruprecht: Ignorance --
The Speaker: Order. The member for Parkdale, I realize it is the end of a long and tiring session. However, some modicum of control over our vocabulary would be very much appreciated. I would ask the member to withdraw the word he just uttered, which is not parliamentary.
Mr Ruprecht: I think you are absolutely correct that I will withdraw this word. However, I want to make sure that the minister has made a policy statement and --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat, please. He was doing fine with the first part of the sentence, so perhaps we will just leave it at that and we will carry on and hear from the Minister of Education.
FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARD
Hon Mrs Boyd: I am very pleased that there is time left for me to make a statement because we did not anticipate that there would be. We received word only today from the Ottawa-Carleton French public sector that it was not prepared to accept a plan we had presented to it by which we would send in the Provincial Auditor, that we would appoint an adviser to assist it and to monitor its expenditures until such time as a need was clearly demonstrated around its financial circumstances.
The House should know that since its establishment in December 1988, this sector of the board has been accumulating a deficit. That deficit in 1990 totalled about $10 million. We anticipate by the end of this calendar year it will total about $19 million. That is a very high proportion of their grant expectations for the year. The bank from which they get their credit line has refused to extend their credit line and we, as a government, have refused to extend under the Education Act the amount of credit they can have.
We feel it is absolutely essential that we exercise what control we have. We have met many times with the board as a ministry. I myself have met with them a number of times to try to find a way to deal with this. They have commenced court action against us on the grounds that the funding base set by the previous government when the board was created did not give them sufficient funding.
At this particular time, the government feels very strongly that we must take the action that is available to us to ensure that the taxpayers, the students and the employees of the board are well served. That action is to ask under the Municipal Affairs Act for the Ontario Municipal Board to take the action required to ensure that fiscal responsibility is exercised by this board.
1420
The Speaker: To be clear, before we go on, we have kept within the 20 minutes allotted for ministerial statements, so the rules will continue to apply. We have five minutes' response time from both parties.
Mr Ruprecht: Mr Speaker, looking at the clock, I see there is one minute and 45 seconds left. I would repeat my call for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation to make a statement.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Being lively and enthusiastic is certainly a good attribute. We are now ready for responses.
RESPONSES
MINIMUM WAGE
Mr Offer: In response to the statement by the Minister of Labour, this increase to the minimum wage is in keeping with the percentage increase of previous Liberal governments. It is one to which we agree, but it is not one that the minister promised the people of this province.
Last summer, in the Agenda for People, as the minister knocked on doors, he said, "Vote for me and the minimum wage of this province will be increased to 60% of the average industrial wage, which will result in a minimum wage of $7.20." The announcement today of $6 is a major backtrack on the promise he made to the people of this province. People responded to his promise, but he has not. The statement today clearly shows that he and his government will say absolutely anything in order to achieve political advantage, but with absolutely no commitment and carrying through.
Last November, on this very topic, I asked the minister a question and he responded by saying, "Surely the member should never have doubted my commitment and my honesty in terms of our commitment to 60% of the average wage in the province of Ontario." On the basis of the statement the minister made today, I certainly do.
GARBAGE DISPOSAL
Mrs Sullivan: I am responding to the announcement from the Minister of the Environment and the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. The minister left this House yesterday and told the media and the people of Ontario that the documents from a cabinet submission that I brought to the House yesterday were out of date and could not be seen as her plan to deal with Metro garbage. What she announced today, however, is precisely what was in those documents, and it is clear that her intent was not to bring these plans before the House.
She makes it clear that there will be a serious garbage gap in the greater Toronto area. Further, her documents, which she released today, show that gap will last from a minimum of two and a half years to over five years. For hundreds of thousands of people in the greater Toronto area, there will be no place to put their garbage. This confirms our worst fears of the minister's mismanagement of this issue.
Today, the minister announced she will call for expansion of garbage dumps on Britannia Road in Peel and Keele Valley in York with no environmental assessment. She adds further pressures to those sites and communities by requiring Keele Valley to accept garbage from Durham region. She has not ruled out transportation of garbage outside the GTA during the garbage gap, but she has deliberately tried to hide that fact. But if members look at the information, they will discover that in fact it is included on page 19 of her document.
The minister has indicated that consultation will take place, but it is also clear that with regard to the expansions of Keele Valley and the Britannia Road landfill site, the consultations will occur after the fact.
The minister has been a strong proponent of the Environmental Assessment Act, but it is clear that the environmental assessment process in fact means very little to her. By using her emergency powers for the short term, she is throwing away the provisions of that act, and it is clear, under the announcement she has made today, that her commitment will be broken for the long term as well. Her announcement says long-term sites will be developed in accordance with the principles of the Environmental Assessment Act. She does not say those long-term sites will be developed under the provisions of that act. The authority will short-circuit not only the existing act, but any streamlined process under new legislation for which we are still waiting, under the environmental assessment program improvement project. There is no indication in these documents, either, of what the site selection criteria will be for the long-term sites. Will she allow garbage dumps in fact to be expanded in the Oak Ridges moraine? Is that automatically a matter of course? It seems clear that it is.
The minister has indicated she must act where there are long-term legislative requirements. She has indicated she would bring before the House legislation to set up the public authority. However, what has occurred is that that authority has been set up with the minister as a sole shareholder of a limited company. That company has no powers or authority under the legislation granted by this House. The only authority it has comes as a result of decisions made behind closed doors by order in council.
The minister has taken responsibility away from the municipalities for the 3R program; now she is turning it back to them. But while she is doing that, she is saying she is going to steal the tipping fees, which would allow them to cover the costs of the 3R program. She talks about consultation, yet she told the municipalities about this fact in a hastily called meeting this morning. The blame for the garbage gap rests with this minister. She is thoroughly incompetent and irresponsible in her management of this issue.
MINIMUM WAGE
Mr Harris: I wish to respond briefly to the statement by the Minister of Labour. Unlike the Liberal Party, which seems to be upset that the minimum wage was not instantaneously set at somewhere around, or in excess of, $7 an hour, I want to congratulate the minister for breaking the Premier's promise. I understand, most of us understand, the need for some form of minimum wage. It is my sense that it should move with inflation. Unfortunately, the government has given increases to $100,000-a-year civil servants of 10%, 12%, 14%, 16%, 18%, 20%, so it was difficult for him not to give at least about 10% on the minimum wage.
But I want to say this to all members of the House quite frankly. I want to say to the Liberal Party and to the New Democratic Party, and I want to say this to all governments in Canada: We all want the minimum wage; we all want all wages to go up. We would like that. However, there is a reality that saying so or artificially setting it so without earning it is causing the deficits, the taxes, the job losses, the lack of competitiveness in this province and this country.
Until this government and all politicians begin to understand that while you might wish that wages could be higher, while you might want to legislate them to be higher in the private sector, the fact of the matter is that if the money is not earned, there will not be any jobs. That is why the estimates of 50,000 job losses in this province were put forward. It is what has happened in other jurisdictions. Unfortunately, many people in this province will go from $5, $5.50, $6, $6.50, $7 to nothing, and I regret that.
GARBAGE DISPOSAL
Mrs Marland: In listening to the Minister of the Environment today, the only thing I can say to the minister is that I see her lips moving, but I hear the voice of the member for St Catharines. I think this is a further demonstration of a flip-flop government, and this day was inevitable. These are her empty promises and it only goes to prove that everything she said before she was elected does not stand for anything now. She is above the law. I have documents in my hand here that protect the expansion of the Britannia landfill site. She seems to have overlooked the fact that we are now going to be spending thousands, perhaps millions of dollars, with the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto and the region of Peel fighting her government on the expansion of these sites.
How is it that the minister is above the law and how is it that she takes over the responsibility for managing garbage for the province and then says in her statement today, "I will require that the regional government undertake detailed studies of the environmental impacts"? How is it she says on the one hand, "I will look after it," and on the other hand she says: "You do it. You spend the money of the local tax base," the local dollars from those people who can hardly afford the taxes as they exist today? I simply say to the minister she should think about the cost of the statement she has made today. She will live to regret it.
Mr Cousens: This minister is showing how inconsistent she can be. They said one thing before when they were going to have public hearings; now we are not going to have public hearings. Last fall, the province was going to accept responsibility; now it is going to be the regions. There was once going to be a public sector authority; now there is an interim sector authority. There was once going to be public integrity; now the minister is going to have emergency powers. What I have to say to this minister is, she is even incomprehensible to the 38% of the population that voted for the government.
1430
LIMITATIONS REFORM
Mr Jackson: All members of the House welcome reforms to the Limitations Act, but, quite frankly, with women having the lowest access rates in this province across all of Canada for compensation, for justice when it comes to assault and a series of other crimes, the solution lies with meaningful reforms across the board, through the Solicitor General's office, through our court system, through counselling and support services. The narrow Limitations Act consultation paper is not the step forward victims are looking for. Stop being the last province in Canada to have a victims' bill of rights. Let's have a bill of rights for victims in this province. They are the only government holding it up in Canada.
EXPO 98
Mr Harris: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understood we had unanimous consent for some time on discussion on Expo 98 and I wonder if we could extend our time. I would like to respond to the non-statement of the minister.
Interjections.
Mr Harris: I am just asking. If they do not want to talk about it, fine. It will not help them.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. I apologize to the member if I did not make it clear that the amount of time allotted for ministerial statements was fully utilized -- would the member for Markham take his seat, please -- and therefore we were continuing to follow the standing orders, which allowed five minutes per party. That has been observed as well. Since we are all in a convivial mood, we are ready to move on to question period.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr Cousens: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: A minister of the crown has violated a section of the Human Rights Code. The Minister for Citizenship with responsibility for human rights in Ontario has changed the procedure for appointing persons to sit on the boards of inquiry under the Ontario Human Rights Code. She has put out a special form. It has been created to allow for persons to apply for these positions. The form adopted by the minister invites applicants to state their race or colour, gender and whether they have a disability. This is in breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code, section 22. I thank the member for Leeds-Grenville for pointing it out to me. It is a very serious breach, and I challenge the minister to address it.
The Speaker: Would the member for Markham take his seat. He may know this is not something that is out of order. It is not a point of privilege, but it sounds as though he was trying to get a jump on question period.
MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES
Mr McLean: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Under section 21(a) of the standing orders, I rise today as a member of this provincial Parliament and as a representative of the people of Simcoe East. My use of this Legislature is being seriously abused as a result of the Minister of the Environment's decision not to acknowledge the concerns of some of my constituents.
The minister was in her seat yesterday through most of question period, but she mysteriously disappeared just before I rose to ask her a question. I believe she knew there were more than 50 people sitting in the galleries here --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr McLean: She knew I had a question for her. I believe she knew the question was going to be asked of her. I know she talked to the Minister of Natural Resources, who ultimately rose to respond to the question. I believe she knew the importance of the matter that I wanted to discuss with her. Mr Speaker --
The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. There are certainly quite a few rules in our book of standing orders, but one of them is not for the Speaker to command the attendance of any member, including any member of cabinet, but I appreciate your bringing this to my attention.
RENT REGULATION
Ms Poole: I too rise on a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: The Minister of Housing has sent out a letter to tenants across this province concerning Bill 121, the proposed Rent Control Act. I will quote excerpts from this letter to show how tenants could be misled to believe that this legislation is in final form and how they could rely on this information.
The letter says: "On 6 June I introduced legislation called the Rent Control Act, which sets out a new system to protect tenants. Under the new system the rent control guideline will be calculated each year based on inflation, but before a landlord is awarded any increase above the guideline he or she must --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. The member for Eglinton may know that events which occur outside of this chamber with respect to government policy or any other matters are not something upon which the Speaker can make a ruling.
I do not know whether we are about to have any more points of order. I would certainly appreciate it if members might take the opportunity of the summer break from this place which we are about to have to perhaps revisit the standing orders.
ORAL QUESTIONS
UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr Kwinter: My question is to the Premier, who will know that today is this Legislature's last sitting of the first year of his government's term of office. The hallmark of this year is perhaps best underscored by unemployment figures released yesterday. In April there were 367,000 unemployment insurance recipients in Ontario, the highest level ever, according to Statistics Canada, and an 84.5% increase over last year.
In the face of these unprecedented numbers, will the Premier not realize the deep apprehension that the people of Ontario have regarding the success of his efforts to get the economy moving, and could he tell us what he and his government are doing about it?
Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate very much the question from the member. Of course there are going to be a variety of views and I know the member has already spoken with respect to our budget.
I was struck this morning by the views of the chief economist and vice-president of the Conference Board of Canada, Mr Frank, who said that if we had had a smaller deficit, "It would have led to a significant delay in the recovery and contributed to further increases in unemployment, bankruptcies and lost output."
He goes on to say, referring to the group of people like house builders, like people who are working, people in the auto sector and elsewhere: "For this group, the budget was a confidence builder. Had the deficit been constrained significantly, I think consumer confidence would have been further damaged and the recovery delayed."
I point out that Mr McCracken from Informetrica says, talking about our budget, "I think it's a move in the right direction to do something for a province that has been particularly hard done by in recent years."
We have brought in a budget to which there have been a variety of responses. The member may disagree with it, but I think there are a number of people who now realize and recognize that the deficit we have faced up to is one that is caused by the recession, by programs that have long been in place in this province, as well as by federal cutbacks, and I think the budget that we have put in place has provided some stimulus to the economy in a difficult time.
1440
Mr Kwinter: Notwithstanding the Premier's allegations, and that is what they really are, that things are really happening, welfare rates have soared by over 185,000 people since he took office. Unemployment figures have increased by 60% from 316,000 in October to 509,000 in May. Yet the only job creation efforts that we have seen from the government are for short-term unskilled positions that will certainly disappear within months.
The NDP government has been either distracted from or oblivious to the issues of the day despite the Premier's protestations to the contrary, and the only response I get from any of its members is either blame it on someone else or go out and find some lone soul in the wilderness who is prepared to support them.
What about talking about all of the people who do not support the government? What about all of the people who were standing outside today at noon? Does the Premier just discount them? Tell me again what it is that the Premier is doing to create jobs in Ontario. What is he doing to get this economy going again?
Hon Mr Rae: I would challenge the honourable member to ask the people outside what they thought of his government and of the record of his administration with respect to the administration of the government. Look at the record. I do not think the Liberal Party can take much comfort from that.
I would just make the following points: I do not think the conference board has ever been described as a lone soul in the wilderness. I have heard the conference board described as many things, but a soul in the wilderness in not one of them. I do not know that you could describe that way the head of Informetrica, which is a well-known economic firm which has provided advice to governments at all levels, and I do not know whether one would describe John Kenneth Galbraith as a soul in the wilderness.
It is precisely because of the human realities behind the figures that the member has quoted today that we made a decision, knowing full well it would be controversial, but we made the decision that this was the year in which we would fight the recession and face up to the fact that, yes, we are going to have a deficit if we do that. That is exactly what we have done. We will continue to do that at the same time as we know and understand that the deficit will begin to come down as the economy recovers.
Mr Kwinter: There are over 1.3 million people in this province on some form of social assistance. The numbers keep getting worse, yet the Premier continues on as if nothing is happening, and the truth is nothing is. Rather than stand up and give us examples of those people who are saying things -- I am not asking him about what they are saying, I am asking what he as the Premier of this province and his government are doing to get this province back to work, to get a climate in this province that will attract investments, that will create jobs and will get us back on a track that we have enjoyed in the past and, unfortunately, under this government have little hope of enjoying in the future.
Hon Mr Rae: Let me tell the member what we are doing. We have the largest capital investment budget in the history of Ontario, over $4 billion of capital investment. Does the member want to know what we are doing? We are maintaining support for our schools, for our hospitals and for our institutions. We are providing assistance to business in terms of adjustment. We are making investments with business in terms of the future of this province and we are providing additional investments in training, all of which the member has criticized. He cannot have it both ways.
The member's party cannot stand up and say, "Your deficit's too high" and then turn around and say, "What are you doing?" The criticism that we are getting from this side of the House is that we are doing too much. The fact of the matter is we are engaged in the most productive investment of any province in this country with respect to capital investment in the future of this province. That is exactly what we are doing.
In a cooler moment, I would say to the honourable member if he has suggestions of a practical kind as to what else we could be doing, I would be very interested in hearing exactly what they are.
GARBAGE DISPOSAL
Mrs Sullivan: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. The minister and her ministry officials knew that a garbage gap was inevitable in the GTA, yet she cancelled plans earlier in the fall for interim sites to be developed under an Environmental Protection Act hearing by the Environmental Assessment Board because it was not good enough for her.
She and her government had promised, and I would just like to take members back to a quotation from the Premier, "All new dump sites and expansions of old ones must go through full environmental assessment hearings which look at environmental, social, cultural and economic impacts of a process."
I am asking the minister today how she reconciles her decision to use emergency powers and no environmental assessment of any kind to expand the Britannia landfill site and the Keele Valley landfill site with the previous promise of full environmental assessments for expansions of those sites.
Hon Mrs Grier: I am glad to have the opportunity to remind the member that under the plans of her government each of the regions within the GTA had to nominate an interim site. There were three sites nominated: one in Peel on prime agricultural land, one in Durham on prime agricultural land, and by the region of York a lift on the Keele Valley site currently approved, currently in operation.
I am faced with the recognition that there may well be and probably will be nine months when we are out of waste capacity within the GTA, and I was faced, as minister, with a very difficult decision. I decided that given the choice I was faced with, I did not want to shortcut the process and open a new greenfield site in Peel or a new greenfield site in Durham, that I had no choice --
Mrs Caplan: You did so cut the process.
The Speaker: Order.
Hon Mrs Grier: -- but to order under my emergency powers available to me under the Environmental Protection Act extra capacity to be found at Britannia and Keele and that is what I did.
Mrs Caplan: How can you stand there with a straight face? Shameful in this House.
Mr Sorbara: We asked her seven months ago to do an EPA.
The Speaker: The member for Oriole, please come to order, and the member for York Centre as well.
Mr Sorbara: She could have done it seven months ago.
The Speaker: The member for York Centre, come to order. Had the minister concluded her remarks? Supplementary.
Mrs Sullivan: I want to remind the minister that under the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee process, Environmental Protection Act proceedings under the Environmental Assessment Board would have been required for those sites, the process would have commenced last autumn and there would not have been a garbage gap had she not taken the stand she has taken and made the decisions she has made.
The minister has clearly stated that municipalities are being directed to implement expansions at both Keele and Britannia Road under her emergency orders. The studies and public involvement are a farce, given the decisions she has already made. The ministry paper, which was released today, states that the gap will last for two and a half years and is liable in fact to continue on until at least 1997.
Her gap strategy is duplicitous. It is not clear how she will meet the gap. Are only two expansions planned? What size will they be? The cabinet document I released yesterday indicated there would be two lifts each at Britannia and at Keele Valley, one of 3 million tons and one of 5 million tons.
I want to ask the minister if she will come clean and tell this House and the people of Ontario exactly and specifically what steps she will be taking to meet the garbage gap that she has indicated existed and that she created.
1450
Hon Mrs Grier: There is something missing from the preamble to the member's question. She fails to acknowledge that the site at Britannia is scheduled to close in March 1992, so for the region of Peel the gap starts next March.
Mrs Caplan: You are totally incompetent on this one. You have no credibility left at all. You created the problem.
The Speaker: The member for Oriole, please come to order.
Hon Mrs Grier: That is an issue that has to be addressed and that I have addressed. How long the gap will last, how high the lifts will be is entirely dependent on how successful all the people in all the institutions within the GTA are in reducing and reusing waste. That is the primary strategy. I was delighted to see in Metropolitan Toronto today in the Toronto Star the works committee feeling --
Mrs Caplan: You have no strategy.
The Speaker: The member for Oriole, come to order.
Some hon members: Throw her out.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Stockwell: Prancing around Metro two years ago; yap, yap, yap and nothing has happened.
The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, come to order as well. Is it difficult to guess this is the last day? I would very much appreciate it if all members in the assembly, and particularly those who find it quite difficult to come to order, could practise a little extra restraint so that we can get through question period and on with our public business.
Mr Sorbara: We asked her to do an EPA last November.
The Speaker: I am asking you to come to order.
Mrs Sullivan: I also want to remind the minister that even with the most ambitious 3R programs, which we support, there will still be massive amounts of garbage to be dealt with. The garbage gap she has created through four different announcements of four different action plans over a period of nine months -- they are not going to be able to deal with it.
The 24 May document, which I introduced in the House yesterday, indicated that shipping of garbage outside of the boundaries of the greater Toronto area was a component of her strategy. The paper released today does not address transportation of waste up front. It is hidden. Through creative writing and weasel words, the minister has left this door open."Transportation of waste may be considered a feasible option," it says on page 19.
Will the minister confirm directly, will she come clean, that in fact she is still considering flip-flopping and allowing the GTA waste to be shipped outside of the region's boundaries, and will she also inform this House what communities are now being considered to be the recipients of that waste?
Hon Mrs Grier: As I indicated yesterday, the submission the member has obtained was a list of all feasible options. For the last several months a team in my ministry has been canvassing all possible options. Transportation is indeed a feasible option. It is not my policy. What I have announced today are two lifts.
I would like to address this fiction that somehow the gap was of my creation. I would like members of the Legislature to recall that the previous government called it an interim site policy and was planning for a six-year gap. I am planning for a nine-month gap.
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier. He is quoted in this morning's Toronto Star as saying, "If anybody thinks they've got a better solution or a quicker answer, I'd like to know what it is."
Mr Sorbara: Resign.
Mr Harris: Aside from the Liberal suggestion to resign, which I think has great merit, but is not something I would say on the last day of the House -- the Premier knows that -- I have, I believe, put forward a dazzling array of suggestions as to how he could cut government spending. I did so in the campaign. I have done so ever since. I have offered to work with him in a non-partisan way to set priorities so that we can cut expenditures and the need for taxes and deficits.
I would like to ask the Premier about one of those in particular. On 20 March 1991, I called for a 2% cap on civil servants' wages in the public sector, something that could be recovered by the civil servants themselves after the recession was over so they would not fall behind. I laid that proposal out, something that would have saved nearly $1 billion in this recessionary year. I called on him to implement that restraint program, not as draconian as many provinces have done but similar to every other province in this country. Can the Premier tell me why he ignored and rejected that suggestion?
Hon Mr Rae: First of all, since it is the last day, I will not be as mean to the leader of the third party as he has been to me. I am not that kind of guy.
I will say to the honourable member that I would not in my wildest moments, of which I still have one or two, dream of ignoring a suggestion from the honourable member. In particular, I want to say to the honourable member that with respect to expenditures of the government, when it comes to operating expenses, we have restrained those to 2%.
With respect to the question of public sector wage settlements, I can tell the honourable member that we have already started discussions with public sector interests, both on the employer side and the employee side, about the realities of the recession and we have already begun discussions with them about the fact that the picture for 1992-93, in terms of wage settlements, is going to be very different from that of 1991-92. The forecasts for inflation are different and our overall strategies obviously have to reflect that.
Mr Harris: I regret that we have missed a year with that, but I will applaud the move if there is restraint, any time.
Let me tell members another one that I talked about last fall where the private sector was ready, willing and able to co-operate with government to provide both short-term and long-term solutions. On 1 November 1990, I endorsed a proposal by the province's rental housing industry to make 20,000 units available to families presently on social housing waiting lists, enough to virtually eliminate the waiting lists. In addition to helping solve the supply problem in this province, this proposal would have cost taxpayers 75% less than the current cost of government and taxpayer assisted units for those requiring assistance in affording shelter.
Can the Premier tell me, other than the fact that the private sector was involved, why he ignored this suggestion to provide housing units to the needy at 25% of the cost?
Hon Mr Rae: Again, if I can just correct the honourable member, we have not ignored his proposals at all. The suggestion that has come forward from the private sector and the suggestion that has come from the honourable member today --
Mr Harris: Not today; 1 November.
Hon Mr Rae: Well, 1 November when it was made -- is one which obviously the Ministry of Housing has looked at and has been examining. We have expanded the rent supplement program to a considerable extent, and if I might add, whenever we have done it, it has been criticized by the Housing critic for the Conservative Party. I would say to the member that we have also taken the road of saying that we want to add to the general supply situation and that is exactly what we are doing. To say that we have ignored these suggestions would not be an accurate statement.
Mr Harris: The record pretty well speaks for itself. All private sector projects, or a lot of them, are being held up. The Premier is offering no shelter subsidies to people to live in them and move into them. Instead, he preferred the government-assisted, government-owned, non-profit at four times the cost. His government's belief in government doing it alone is costing taxpayers billions of dollars. His unwillingness to co-operate with the private sector is costing Ontario thousands of jobs.
On 20 December 1990, I offered a solution for the hundreds, indeed thousands of children who go to school hungry. A year ago, he believed in the need for and the merits of a breakfast program. Why has he not contacted the private sector, which initiated this program, a solution which it says, through volunteers, through private sector contributions, can be provided at no cost to the taxpayer? I raised that on 20 December. I have asked repeatedly why he will not allow the private sector to do what it can do and put a breakfast program in place for hungry children. To date, they have not been contacted. We have no initiative on his part on this. Now that the last day of school is over, why did he ignore that suggestion to provide assistance to hungry children at no cost to the taxpayer?
1500
Hon Mr Rae: Although I do not have time to go through them all, I would say very directly to the honourable member that some of the statements he makes -- the statement he made on the minimum wage. What the minister announced today was entirely in keeping with the policies we put forward during the election campaign for a staged implementation of the increases in the minimum wage.
I am very sceptical of someone who comes forward and says, "We can do this for nothing." The reality is that school boards are working on these questions. The question of hunger in schools is one which is of tremendous concern to us.
Mr Harris: I didn't say "nothing." I said at no cost to the taxpayer.
Hon Mr Rae: No cost to the taxpayer. Our experience is that there is no free lunch and there is no free breakfast either. Therefore, the Minister of Education is working with school boards. We are very concerned about the impact hunger is having on our kids. Of course we are trying to respond to it, but do not pretend it can be done free, because it cannot be done free.
Mr Harris: I suggest to the Premier that the only thing that is staged is the rhetoric and the press conferences, with very little in the way of action. The Premier and the Treasurer keep saying that is not true. I have heard the Treasurer say on 50 occasions, "The opposition never gives us any good ideas." I have given them hundreds of good ideas. I mentioned three today, and they do not listen to them.
Hon Mr Cooke: And only 15% of them have been right.
Mr Harris: If they took 1% of them, they would be better off than they are today.
GARBAGE DISPOSAL
Mr Harris: In today's press release from the Minister of the Environment, she says, "The prospect of having nowhere to dispose of waste is too great a risk to the health, environment and economy of the regions." There is a place where the minister and the regions may be able to dispose of waste. The Kirkland Lake proposal seemed to me to be a commonsense solution endorsed by about 99% of all the mayors and reeves in northeastern Ontario. It would create new jobs in the recycling industry, an industry for which the minister professes her support. Unless more garbage than is generated in all of northern Ontario is available, the economics do not justify the latest in the most available up-to-date technology.
Why did the minister dismiss the Kirkland Lake proposal out of hand, without examining the merits and without permitting a full environmental assessment to proceed on that proposal?
Hon Mrs Grier: Kirkland Lake was one of a number of proposals that were being considered for sites all across the province -- not just Kirkland Lake. Kirkland Lake was one; Plympton was another; Marmora was another. We all know where they were. The principle of this government's policies to deal with waste management is that we have to try to dispose of the waste as close as possible to the source of generation. If we do not, we will not get serious about reduction and reuse, which has to be the basis of waste management, resource management, within this province and within our entire society. That was the decision of this government. That was the only environmental decision.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. I remind the member for Oriole that if any member of the assembly is a cause of disorder, that member may be named by the Speaker.
Mr Harris: Once again I suggest to the minister that we keep seeing her lips moving but we hear the words of the member for St Catharines coming out. The minister has done one flip-flop after another. In her response to my question, she said the most important, number one, top-notch criterion is that it must be as close to the generation as possible. I thought number one was the protection of the environment. I thought we were looking for the safest site that made the most sense for the environment.
Can the minister tell me how proceeding with lifts at Keele and Britannia without an environmental assessment is more environmentally sound than safely shipping waste to a community that wants it for recycling purposes and is prepared, ready, willing and able to go through a full environmental assessment right now?
Hon Mrs Grier: There seems to be an incredible presumption that the environmental assessment process which was being undertaken for sites in northern Ontario and all across northern Ontario would have turned up Kirkland Lake. There is no guarantee that would have happened, yet the member seems to believe that is the only site the waste could have gone to.
Three members of the third party have now said to me that what they are hearing is what they heard from my predecessor. There are many statements of my predecessor with which I am glad to associate myself, but the solid waste interim steering committee process that led to new greenfield sites under a short-circuited approval process, namely, the Environmental Protection Act, and the shipping of waste to northern Ontario and other parts was nothing that has ever come from my lips. It came fully from the member for St Catharines.
Mr Harris: Subsection 5(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act states:
"An environmental assessment submitted to the minister...shall consist of,
"(a) a description of the purpose of the undertaking;
"(b) a description of and a statement of the rationale for,
"(i) the undertaking,
"(ii) the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking, and
"(iii) the alternatives to the undertaking."
The Environmental Assessment Act states that all sites have to be considered and the best solution is the one that must be selected. How can the minister rule out sending waste to Kirkland Lake, outside the GTA, when the EA act stipulates that all alternatives must be explored? Would she not agree with me that she is in violation of the Environmental Assessment Act in eliminating a possible solution that may indeed be the most environmentally sensitive? But we will never know unless it is allowed to compete and go up against the Britannia site and the Keele site.
Hon Mrs Grier: I disagree profoundly.
Mr Mahoney: I would like to address my question to the Minister of the Environment as well. Actually, I feel some sympathy for the minister. I am sure, given her background as a municipal politician and her background as a critic of the Environment ministries and ministers in the past, she cannot help but be terribly embarrassed by this turn of events, by the leaked cabinet document that was signed by her that she then dismissed as out of date and irrelevant.
I listened to her yesterday say she will solve the problem. Today we have a statement where she says she is going to require regional governments to undertake detailed studies of the environmental impacts on Britannia and Keele Valley and that she will ensure that the maximum degree of public consultation is carried out through public liaison committees representing communities adjacent to the two sites. The minister will know we have the mayor of Mississauga and the chairman of Peel here today.
The Speaker: Would the member place his question, please.
1510
Mr Mahoney: What advice would the minister have for Mayor McCallion and Chairman Bean when they attend these public meetings in Britannia, in the community with all of the residents surrounding it, to announce to them that they have not an environmental impact study but an engineering study, which has been bought and paid for, which is sitting here, and ask these people if they will comment on more garbage in their backyard put there by her? She derailed their process when it was well on its way.
The Speaker: Would the member conclude his question, please.
Mr Mahoney: What advice does she have that will help these people deal with the public?
Hon Mrs Grier: The member seems to have lost track of time. The process that was under way that would have found a site in Peel would not have found a site in time to meet the gap.
Interjection.
The Speaker: If the member for Oriole continues to be disruptive, she will leave the Speaker with no alternative but to name her. I ask the member once again to come to order and allow the minister the opportunity to respond.
Hon Mrs Grier: The shortfall in capacity in the region of Peel has been well known for the past several years. The process that was under way would not have addressed that gap and the region of Peel would have found itself, regardless of who was the Minister of the Environment, in March 1992 -- in fact, they anticipated finding themselves in that situation in September 1990, but we have extended that to March 1992.
The problem exists, and it has to be dealt with. I have dealt with it in the best possible way, given the options open to me. Of course it would have been nice to have had an environmental assessment. The member knows as well as I do that you cannot have an environmental assessment in six months.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Would the member for Halton Centre come to order.
Hon Mrs Grier: If we had started on 1 September we would not have had an environmental assessment completed by March --
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take her seat, please.
Oh, it is warm in here -- no air-conditioning and the humidity is high.
I suspect that the member who asked the question really wanted to hear a response and wanted to place a supplementary within an appropriate time frame.
Mr Mahoney: My supplementary has to do with the fact that people in Britannia were promised in 1977 that it would be a 12-year site. The region of Peel, with respect, was well on its way to living up to that promise, at least coming close. Now it has not got a chance, due to the minister pulling the plug.
On page 3 of the document she released today she talks about the Interim Waste Authority. This is really scary. If the problem of just adding a lift into Britannia is bad, this is really scary. She talks about the Interim Waste Authority Ltd being established to find three landfill sites. "The searches will follow the principles of the environmental assessment process."
I know she has principles, and if we do not like them, she has others. I understand that and I am very concerned. We do not want her just following her fabricated, made-up principles. We want the minister living up to the rules --
The Speaker: And the question, please.
Mr Mahoney: -- under the environmental assessment process. Will she ensure that the next dumpsite she is telling the Interim Waste Authority Ltd to find will go under the full process?
Hon Mrs Grier: Yes, I will. As the member knows, we have under way a process for amending the Environmental Assessment Act and finding ways in which the act can be made more effective and more cost-effective and timely. The legislation I will introduce next fall will embody within it the amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act that are contemplated under the EA process and will set out very clearly the environmental assessment process that will be followed for the long-term sites. That is my commitment and the commitment of this government.
Mrs Marland: My question is to the Premier. If this is what the GTA is all about, obviously it should be abolished. The Premier stood on the sites of these landfills during the election and was shown on TV across this province promising those people there would be no expansion to these landfill sites without a full environmental assessment. I ask him today: When he made those statements, was he lying? Was he stupid? Did he not understand the implications of what he --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order. I appreciate very much that members have worked extremely hard for many months and they are tired. They attend dutifully every day. I realize that members who do not normally use the vocabulary which I have just heard would not under most circumstances use that vocabulary. I would ask the member if she could rephrase her question.
Mrs Marland: I am not accusing the Premier of lying. I am simply asking him, when he made those promises to the people of Ontario on national TV across this province, was he lying? I am asking him to tell us today what he is going to do with the garbage gap when the people in those municipalities take him to court and issue injunctions and we have two years in court. We will not have a solution to solve this garbage gap. This Premier is responsible --
The Speaker: You have concluded your question.
Hon Mr Rae: I heard the question carefully and I can tell the honourable member that I have known her too long to respond to her question in the spirit in which it was asked. I will have to respond in a slightly different way.
I would say to the honourable member that the situation --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. I really do not think having a shouting match is any way to ask questions or to respond to them. If the members of the third party would like to hear an answer, they will have to listen.
Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that the situation we faced after 6 September was one of enormous difficulty. If we had carried out the policy of the previous government, we would have faced a situation where we were not simply adding on to existing sites but were in fact building new sites on greenfield land in two places, in the east end of the GTA and the west end of the GTA, without a full EPA and with a similar prospect of challenges in court and so on, and therefore still a substantial gap, a garbage gap left to us by the delays under the previous administration.
Mrs Caplan: That is not true.
Hon Mr Rae: That is true. That is a simple reality. We can show members the numbers and the projections. That is simply the case. Faced with a difficult choice, we have what we feel is the most environmentally sound proposal that can be made in the circumstances we inherited on 6 September.
Mr Cousens: The Premier has put this House into a difficult position where the member for Mississauga South has come close to saying something that she should not say, but she is touching on a nerve that is really part of the trust that got him elected as Premier and his government elected. I cannot think of anything else, and I am leading to this issue of trust, the fundamental --
The Speaker: Is there a question?
Interjections.
1520
Mr Cousens: Oh, come on. If they come along and play the games -- we are talking now about why they got elected, and why they got elected has to do with what the Premier said when he was the Leader of the Opposition.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. In a moment I will ask the member for Markham to succinctly place a question, but before so doing -- would the member take his seat, please.
I spoke earlier to the member for Mississauga South because although that is, quite frankly, a borderline remark, I believe it is in the best interest of the dignity of this House for members not to use the word "lying" in whatever context. If they would please try to avoid that vocabulary, it does nothing to enhance the dignity of our chamber.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Yes, we might very well have to take a break. Would the member for Markham succinctly place a question.
Mr Cousens: What did the Premier say, as Leader of the Opposition, when he was within spitting distance of the garbage dumps, about what he was going to do when and if he was Premier, about those garbage sites?
Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member, and say it very directly to him, that we were faced with a very difficult choice. I will put the choices to him.
We could have proceeded with the Liberal plan, which would have meant a number of things. First of all, it would have meant building new sites without a proper environmental assessment, greenfield sites. It would have meant enormous uncertainty with respect to other so-called long-term solutions that in our view did not deal with the 3R program.
Instead, what have we done? We have started the most aggressive 3R program anywhere in North America. That is what is going to be under way and that is what we think is going to help us to solve the problem. What we are doing is to continue on that path, faced with enormously difficult choices. There are no easy or magic choices in this area. The minister has made the tough choices that we feel in the circumstances simply have to be made.
FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
Mr Duignan: A number of events in my riding have made me very concerned about the impact of development on some rivers, on the fish habitat in areas in my riding and indeed in the region of Halton. Two rivers come to mind, Sixteen Mile Creek and Bronte Creek. Can the minister explain what steps have been taken to make sure the fish habitat is being protected?
Hon Mr Wildman: This is an important question. As the member will know, the ministry has been involved for some time in the development of the strategic plan for Ontario fisheries, second phase. That highlights the need for greater action to protect fish habitat in the province and restore lakes and rivers to a healthy status through partnership and co-operation with industry, government agencies, client groups and the public. Once the evaluation measures are developed and implemented, we will be looking towards reporting on the health of aquatic ecosystems throughout the province.
Mr Duignan: Could the minister please indicate who is involved in the development of this strategy?
Hon Mr Wildman: There was a very widespread consultation process in the development of SPOF 2. There were 42 groups representing a wide spectrum of opinion: environmental protection groups, industry and development organizations, various ministries of the federal and provincial governments, aboriginal groups, hunters and anglers, tourist outfitters, the fish producers and so on. They all have very strong support for the public consultation process. It was one of the most successful government programs so far and we look forward to developing the SPOF program along the lines that were suggested and the consensus that was reached among these groups.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY
Mr Offer: On 15 November 1990, when discussing the merits of open government, the Premier was quoted as saying, "I don't see why the public should not get hold of more government information." In the same article, the Chairman of Management Board confirmed that she was actively working on legislation that would guarantee civil servants indemnity if they "blew the whistle" and went public with government information.
For years the NDP have strongly advocated the protection of civil servants' right to divulge information when that is in the best public interest. The most vocal of these was the now Minister of the Environment, particularly when she was defending the rights of employees to divulge information in order to protect the environment.
My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Could she please tell this House if she is committed to the protection of civil servants' rights and what actions she is taking as the Minister of the Environment to ensure these rights will be entrenched?
Hon Mrs Grier: I will refer that question to the Chairman of Management Board.
Hon Ms Lankin: We are completely committed to moving in this direction. I have had people within the Human Resources Secretariat, in combination with the people from the freedom of information and protection of privacy branch of the commission, working on developing some option papers for us to consider.
The member will recall that we released a consultation paper on political activity rights which will involve amendments to the Public Service Act. We had given consideration to whether or not the changes that would bring about whistle-blowing protection should be in the Public Service Act. We are contemplating right now whether it should actually be in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. We are moving forward on it and I hope to have a document I can release for consultation some time later this summer or early fall.
Mr Offer: I am somewhat distressed that the Minister of the Environment would not have seen fit, in terms of her previous commitment, to respond to this question. I am sure the minister will know that a number of senior civil servants are somewhat disgusted at the NDP's cowardice in condemning ministry staff, therein avoiding their own ministerial responsibilities. Right now, there are literally thousands of civil servants who are completely unsure of where they stand with her government.
To compound this rampant confusion, we have been led to believe that as a result of yesterday's cabinet document disclosures, the Minister of the Environment is considering calling for a police investigation to find out the identity of the offending civil servant.
Can the minister commit today to inquiring of the Minister of the Environment why she would even consider calling for a police investigation into this matter? Does her government, does she and does the Minister of the Environment honestly feel that bringing in police is consistent with the type of whistle-blowing reforms that she so fervently advocates today?
Hon Ms Lankin: At this point, I will not comment on a police matter with respect to cabinet documents. I will say to the member very directly that we are absolutely committed to whistle-blowing protection that will allow civil servants to bring forward information of wrongdoing in government.
We will really look forward to having the comments of the member opposite and of the third party with respect to the consultation paper when we release it. I think there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. In fact, how do you define wrongdoing? How do people have their rights protected? Should the freedom of information branch have a special commission that will deal with that? There are very important issues there.
I will reiterate to the member that we are absolutely committed to bringing this legislation forward, hopefully in the fall session. I invite their comments on the consultation paper.
1530
PURCHASE OF HYDRO PLANT
Mr Jordan: My question is for the Minister of Energy. As the minister knows, 30 June is only three days away. That was the deadline she gave the House for Ontario Hydro to settle the question of purchasing the Smoky Falls power plant from the Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co. Given the minister's commitment to generating power from non-nuclear sources and the fact that a government committee has been working for months to finalize this commitment and during that time the minister has taken control of Ontario Hydro, could she tell the House today what her plans are in the next three days to finalize that deal at Kapuskasing?
Hon Ms Carter: I defer to the Minister of Northern Development.
Hon Miss Martel: It has been my ministry that has had the lead in this all along, so it seems very appropriate to me to be trying to deal with the question. As the member will know, we have been in intensive negotiations with a number of stakeholders in this. At this point in time I am not in a position to release the details to the House.
Mr Eves: I would remind the ministers involved that we are at the 11th hour in these negotiations to save 1,200 jobs. The same government that criticizes other governments for rolling the dice and waiting till the 11th hour is doing the same thing itself.
We heard today from the Minister of the Environment that she is prepared to waive the environmental assessment process with respect to the GTA, yet we have never heard from this government where it stands on Ontario Hydro's committed purchase of the Smoky Falls power plant and the Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co. We have not heard why the government will not allow Ontario Hydro to proceed with its purchase, to assume the responsibility for whatever the ramifications of the environmental assessment process are and save those 1,200 jobs in Kapuskasing. The minister has three more days to do it. She should stand up and do it today.
Hon Miss Martel: I am certainly interested in the support the member has shown for this, but he will know, as I responded to a question from the member from the Liberal Party last week, that we have said we had a proposal we wanted to put forward to all of the stakeholders which would involve a shared risk. We were at that time involved in the negotiations and have continued to look at that, trying to deal with those shareholders so we would all share that risk.
The member also knows -- and I will remind him and all the members -- that part of that contract was that the deal would go through based on the positive response of the environmental assessment. I would remind the member that the environmental assessment has not occurred.
As I said earlier, in response to the comment from the member who raised the question, we continue with the negotiations. We are very cognizant of the uncertainty in the community. We have been working non-stop on this for many months. He has no idea how much work has gone into it. As soon as we have a response we will be pleased to release it to the public.
ALGOMA STEEL CORP
Mr Martin: Last week I asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs what he was going to do in view of Algoma Steel Corp's inability to pay its taxes to the city of Sault Ste Marie. He assured me there was going to be some action taken. Today we find out that they are also not going to be able to pay their taxes to the municipality of Wawa, which amounts to the sizeable amount of money of $200,000 now and possibly $200,000 in September.
What I ask the minister today is, could he give me a status update on the Sault Ste Marie situation and what is he going to do about Wawa?
Hon Mr Cooke: I can indicate to the member that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is meeting with officials in Wawa today about their situation. As I indicated to the member last week, we were meeting with individuals from Sault Ste Marie. It is my understanding from talking to officials in my ministry that there has been an understanding by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that Sault Ste Marie will qualify for assistance from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs of approximately the $3.5-million level from the ministry directly to Sault Ste Marie.
Mr Martin: The same as last week, I would like to know, re Wawa, what kind of time frame we are looking at, because as Sault Ste Marie was in a difficult situation, Wawa is too and would like some assurance that it is going to happen as quickly.
Hon Mr Cooke: We understand the very difficult circumstances and we moved very quickly with Sault Ste Marie. We will be moving just as quickly with Wawa.
DEMOCRATIC PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION CONFERENCE
Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet. In response to an Orders and Notices question from the member for Renfrew North, the Chairman of Management Board revealed that the NDP had spent $15,000 of the taxpayers' money for a weekend retreat for 52 NDP political staff and others at Glendon College. This is where they would be instructed in learning how to run governments by members of the militant Bennite fringe flown in from London, England, expressly for the education of the minister and her colleagues.
Does the minister, who has expressed grave concern over the wasted expenditures of some of her cabinet colleagues, now share the doubts of many in the community as to the propriety of the expenditure at this time?
Hon Ms Lankin: I am very surprised at the characterization that the member for St Catharines gives to the response I provided. First of all, he indicates that this was some weekend retreat. This was a conference on democracy in government. The characterization he gives to the varied speakers who came to speak to that conference is very unfortunate. He talks about 52 political staff having attended. There were 52 attendees, of whom we listed all of the names in the response. Clearly there are civil servants of all levels as well as political staff in ministers' offices and ministers, myself included, who attended.
In terms of the money that was provided, this was provided as the registration fee and attendance between Cabinet Office and Management Board of Cabinet to participate jointly with York University in the sponsoring of this conference. I think it is entirely an appropriate expenditure. It is one I think serves the province well. I attended the conference myself and found it of tremendous use in terms of the information that was provided and in terms of a number of the people who were involved in the conference from the civil service. The information they have brought back --
The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her remarks.
Hon Ms Lankin: Yes, Mr Speaker, I will conclude my remarks.
The information they have brought back and have included in discussions that we have had about policy development, about consultation, I think has been very helpful and, as I said, it serves the people of the province well.
Mr Bradley: It is interesting to note that while the NDP government rejects that part of the British heritage associated with the Queen, it leapt up to shell out taxpayers' money to learn at the knees of a group which was expelled from the British Labour Party for advocating and pursuing militant and destructive socialism in Britain.
In the order paper response, the minister said the $15,000 she paid for the seminar covered participation fees for her colleagues and herself. However, I have in my hand the letter of invitation to the event from the organizers, which states that there will not be any registration fee.
Will the minister admit to the House that her government authorized the payment of $15,000 to subsidize the costs of flying in from England and housing and feeding these representatives of the Bennite fringe?
Hon Ms Lankin: I never have any opposition to answering questions in the House, and I certainly do not mind answering the supplementary although we had run past the time. That is fine, and I appreciate your latitude with the member, Mr Speaker, to allow him to place the supplementary, particularly because I think it is important to set the record straight.
The conference we are talking about is a conference that was jointly sponsored by York University, the Cabinet Office and Management Board of Cabinet. It is a legitimate academic conference dealing with the issue of democratic public administration. Democratic public administration is not some fringe concept as the member would imply. In fact, government often sponsors conferences of all sorts. In joining together with York University in terms of this particular conference, we indicated that we wanted a large number of people to participate from government, from the civil service, and there were some political staff and ministers, as I said, including myself who attended the conference and who learned greatly.
Given it is the last day, I will give the member a little latitude. He is normally very reasoned and his uncharacteristic behaviour in terms of the characterization of this is understandable. School is almost out.
1540
MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr Scott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is similar to the one I raised yesterday. I sought to ask the Minister of Community and Social Services to stay while I made the point. I told her what it was about and she ran out. This is the second time the minister has given an undertaking to the House to answer -- here she is.
Two days ago, the Minister of Community and Social Services gave an undertaking to answer in question period my questions about the purchase of a rug for her boardroom and other decorations and furnishings purchased to, we understand, a total of slightly under $120,000.
She was unable to achieve that undertaking yesterday. She undertook to respond in question period today. She did not do so. I believe my privileges have been infringed by the failure of the minister to answer a question in a setting in which an opposition member can ask about it.
The Speaker: There is nothing in the standing orders which would allow the Speaker to compel --
Mr Scott: It has to do with integrity, an undertaking to the House.
The Speaker: Did the member wish to hear my response?
Mr Scott: You are not mad at me, are you?
The Speaker: Who could be upset with you?
There is nothing the Speaker can look to in the standing orders to compel a minister of the crown to respond in the House.
Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You noted that during question period I was quite distressed with some of the behaviour from the government side of the House and was responding to it. I want you to know, Mr Speaker, as I rise on this point of order that it is very difficult for order to be maintained in the House when, as we know, certain words are unacceptable to be used because one should not impute motives.
For a minister to stand in this House and make a commitment and say she is going to do something and then not do it does not serve this House well.
The Speaker: Will the member take her seat.
PETITIONS
LANDFILL SITE
Mrs Marland: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario containing several thousand names. The petition reads as follows:
"I live in the community surrounding the Britannia landfill and I strongly oppose any expansion of the site. I demand the closure of the site no later than 31 December 1991, as promised."
I am happy to add my signature to this petition with several thousand names of concerned citizens.
OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr Jackson: It is my privilege to present in honour of Canada Day this petition bearing several thousand signatures to the Legislature of Ontario:
"Whereas the government of Bob Rae has placed our heritage in danger, and whereas we live in a constitutional monarchy, and whereas the symbol of our national unity and identity has been removed,
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:
"To immediately restore the name of Her Majesty the Queen to the oath of allegiance sworn by police officers in Ontario."
I have wholeheartedly supported this resolution and affixed my signature to it.
TAXATION
Mr Brown: I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.
"Whereas our Canadian flag, our pride and heritage, is being taxed federally and provincially, but the American flag, the symbol of their pride and heritage, is not being taxed at all, I petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:
"To remove this unjust tax immediately and release the symbol of our heritage from the bonds of our tax system for Canada's birthday 1991."
NURSING HOMES
Mr Tilson: I wish to present a petition of 143 signatures from my riding of Dufferin-Peel concerning a fear of a deterioration of long-term care in Ontario. I have affixed my name to it.
"Whereas we, the residents, families and staff of Avalon Care Centre, are very concerned about the funding inequities of nursing homes in the province of Ontario;
"Whereas it is our understanding that the government funds homes for the aged at a much higher rate than nursing homes and as a result many nursing homes may face bankruptcy;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows."
CHILD CARE
Mr Jackson: I have petitions signed by 16,000 Ontario residents to the government of Ontario.
"We, the undersigned, request that the Minister of Community and Social Services take immediate action to rectify the further salary inequities announced by her January 31, 1991 for early childhood educators. We believe that the principles of freedom of choice, pay equity and non-discrimination form the backbone of our democratic society. Furthermore, parents who use day care services in this province must retain the right to select the day care of their choice."
That is signed by 16,000 residents and it has my signature of support.
OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
Mrs Sullivan: I have a petition from close to 100 residents of Halton, as follows:
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"The assembly shall demand that the government of Ontario rescind its decision to eliminate the oath of allegiance to the Queen of Canada for police officers who must uphold laws that are proclaimed in the name of Elizabeth the Second."
I have affixed my signature to this petition and concur with it.
Mr J. Wilson: I have a petition that is signed by a number of residents of the township of Essa and it is also endorsed by the council of the township of Essa through resolution. The petition reads as follows:
"Whereas the Queen of Canada has long been a symbol of national unity for Canadians from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds;
"Whereas the people of Canada are currently facing a constitutional crisis which could potentially result in the breakup of the federation and are in need of unifying symbols;
"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore the oath to the Queen for Ontario's police officers."
I have the pleasure of also affixing my signature to this petition.
HOSPITAL BEDS
Mr Winninger: I have a petition with 34 names affixed to it petitioning the provincial government in connection with the recent bed closings announced at University Hospital in London:
"Whereas University Hospital is one of the province's most expensive hospitals after accounting for the intensity of care, and closing beds will not increase the efficiency of University Hospital and it is unlikely that more money will be forthcoming from the province, therefore, we petition that an investigator be appointed under section 7 of the Public Hospitals Act to review the efficiency of University Hospital operations; to review the services programs of University Hospital in the context of London and southwest Ontario to ensure the least impact on the public; finally, recommending changes to keep University Hospital within its budget allocation with the least impact on direct patient care and the number of people treated."
NURSING HOMES
Mrs Sullivan: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to initiate changes in the current conditions in Ontario nursing homes to better provide nurturing care for the inhabitants thereof by: reducing the ratio of care giver-resident from 12 to 1 to 6 to 1 so as to alleviate stress resulting in dealing with chronic, full care people in a limited time frame; to reduce the occurrences of job-related accidents to staff and residents; to nurture a positive attitude in present depressing atmosphere; improved training methods for new health care aids; use fewer registered nursing assistants for nursing services to prevent the possibility of mistaken administration of medicine.
"Whereas we, the undersigned, feel that the holistic needs of residents of nursing homes are not being met chiefly because of the denial of the government to meet the funding requirements of the nursing home establishments. This denial has resulted in severe staffing shortages causing decreased time allotted for residents, increased stress on both care giver and recipient, and increased the possibility of injury to both parties. In day care the ratio of child to care giver is 5 to 1. In some nursing homes the ratio is sometimes as high as 12 to 1 for chronic, full-care people. Because of this we feel justified in presenting this petition to compel the government of Ontario to more closely examine its reasons for the restriction in funding it has placed in this area."
I have attached my name to this petition.
1550
SOCIAL SERVICES
Mr Jackson: This is a petition to the government of Ontario:
"We, the undersigned, petition the government as follows:
"Yes, I demand that the Rae government act immediately to introduce a social work act for Ontario. Without this urgently needed legislation, every member of the public in Ontario, including those most vulnerable and disfranchised, remains at enormous and unnecessary risk.
"Mr Rae, your government must act now. Building a strong Ontario for tomorrow is dependent on protecting the children and families of today."
I support a social worker act for Ontario, as do the several hundred names, and I have affixed my signature of support as well.
REPORT BY COMMITTEE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
Mr Wiseman from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the committee's report and moved its adoption.
Mr Wiseman: This report is on cross-border shopping. I would like to thank all the members of the committee for their participation and diligent work in bringing it forward. I would also like to thank the researchers, Anne Anderson and David Rampersad, for their hard work. I would like to read just one section of this report to the House.
"The committee heard from 18 witnesses. Following briefings by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Minister of Revenue and her senior officials, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and staff from the legislative research service, a wide variety of experts and interested parties made presentations to the committee to state their concerns and present the results of their studies. Every effort was made to include representation from as many sectors as possible, including retailers, distributors, consumers, the dairy industry and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, as well as consultants in the field. The committee is appreciative of the thoughtful and eloquent testimony of the witnesses, and would like to thank those who took the time and so generously shared their concerns and expertise with the committee."
On motion by Mr Wiseman, the debate was adjourned.
INTRODUCTION OF BILL
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES A L'ACCES A L'INFORMATION ET LA PROTECTION DE LA VIE PRIVÉE
Ms Lankin moved first reading of Bill 136, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy.
Mme Lankin propose la première lecture du projet de loi 136, Loi portant modification de certaines lois relatives à l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
Hon Ms Lankin: Very briefly, I would like to inform the House that this is a technical amendment to the legislation. The main purpose of the bill is to provide for the Ministry of Labour to receive confidential information from the federal Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission about hazardous materials in the workplace.
There is a review of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ongoing by committee. This will not at all interfere with that work and the review of the committee. But it is a technical exemption we need to have brought in at this point in order that the workplace hazardous materials information system regulations in Ontario can be effective and that the Ministry of Labour can receive information and have information about trade secrets with respect to chemicals and those sorts of things held by the federal government.
1557
His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.
ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE
Hon Mr Alexander: Pray be seated.
The Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:
Bill 25, An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983 and the Land Titles Act.
Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act.
Bill 36, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Assessment.
Bill 66, An Act to amend the Police Services Act, 1990.
Projet de loi 66, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1990 sur les services policiers.
Bill 79, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act in respect of Liability for Tax on Transfers of Gasoline, Aviation Fuel or Propane.
Projet de loi 79, Loi portant modification de la Loi de la taxe sur l'essence concernant l'assujettissement à la taxe lors de transferts d'essence, de carburant aviation ou de propane.
Bill 82, An Act to establish the Treasury Board.
Projet de loi 82, Loi créant le Conseil du Trésor.
Bill 122, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities.
Projet de loi 122, Loi portant modification de certaines lois concernant les municipalités.
Bill Pr11, An Act to revive The Big Sisters Organization of The Regional Municipality of Sudbury.
Bill Pr13, An Act respecting South Ottawa Services Foundation, Inc.
Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.
Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.
Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.
Bill Pr42, An Act to revive Magnum International Productions Inc.
Bill Pr50, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.
Bill Pr63, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.
Bill Pr65, An Act to revive Multimobile Corporation Limited.
Bill Pr69, An Act to revive The May Court Club of Oakville.
Bill Pr70, An Act respecting The Royal Conservatory of Music.
Bill Pr71, An Act respecting The London Foundation.
Bill Pr75, An Act respecting the City of Chatham.
Bill Pr77, An Act respecting The Corporation of the Township of Chandos.
Bill Pr82, An Act respecting the Town of Oakville.
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.
Au nom de Sa Majesté, Son Honneur le lieutenant-gouverneur sanctionne ces projets de loi.
HONOURABLE LINCOLN ALEXANDER
Hon Mr Rae: Your Honour, I wonder if I might be permitted to say a few words. I know the leaders of the other parties will want to as well. We have had occasion and we will have occasion in more informal moments to pay our respects to you. I think I have done so three times already and I look forward to doing so on many more occasions before September.
I simply want to say to you, Your Honour, that you have served Her Majesty and the people of the province with enormous distinction. This is a day for us of mixed emotions, because we know that in your heart of hearts, and certainly in your good wife's, this is a moment at which you would like to perhaps have a little more time for yourself and your family.
It has been my pleasure to know a great many people in public life and a great many people who have served the public, but I cannot think of anyone who has served the public, the people of the province and Her Majesty with more distinction, with more grace, with more courtesy and with more kindness to the people of the province. We are honoured that you acceded to the request made many years ago to fulfil the responsibilities of Lieutenant Governor. It is with great pride that I express on behalf of the government our very best wishes to you. We express to you our gratitude for what you have done and how much we are looking forward to your continued public service for the future of the province.
A little less formally, I would also say to Your Honour that you have always displayed enormous humour, great humanity and great kindness. Our careers have crossed on a number of occasions, or our paths have crossed. We have never crossed swords. I have come to admire you a great deal when you and I were both private members in opposition to the government of the day in 1978, when you became a minister of the crown, when you went on to become, through circumstances I will not dwell on, the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board and then on to serve the public as Lieutenant Governor.
You have always done so with great dignity and kindness. I do not know anybody in politics who has more friends on all sides of the various Houses that you have served in than you do. As we all know, this is a business in which it is important to remember one's friends over time and important always to cultivate friendship that crosses party lines.
Sir, I want to express our deep gratitude as a government for your distinction, for your kindness and for your service and to say we wish you well.
Mr Nixon: It is my great pleasure to express similar views from the official opposition and to thank you, sir, for your unfailing good humour and dignity as you carried out your duties over these many years. My connection with you, as you may recall, goes back a good long time to when we both attended McMaster University. In 1946 I, as a freshman, was admiring you from a distance because you were the football hero and I could not make the cheering squad.
You went on, as all members of this House will know, from one success to another, both in your career as a lawyer and in politics, and ending in what I consider to be a role of high service as the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. I, on the other hand, have struggled mightily to keep my nose above water as I have looked at you with admiration.
Having served with you, in a sense, as a minister of the crown and in opposition over these years, I have been particularly impressed with your good humour and the way you can relate to the residents of Ontario and the citizens of Canada wherever you meet them in many small communities of the type that I represent as well as in the height of high fashion in the big cities, where you have been able to distinguish yourself with your usual charm and knowledge.
This is an important occasion for us as you are winding down your career in this aspect, but I know that your record of public service will be admired for many years and I know that your involvement in the community with your wife and family will be something we will continue to admire as you go forward in good health and continued service.
Mr Harris: Your Honour, this is one of those rare times in political life when all members of this assembly speak with one united voice on behalf of the people of Ontario. It is something that does not happen quite as often as I know we would all like.
Today we do so with pride, with passion and with conviction in paying tribute to our friend, our patron, the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, the Honourable Lincoln Alexander, who will, however, in accordance with his often-stated wishes to me and to others, be referred to throughout the remainder of my remarks as Linc.
It is without any acrimony or any partisanship whatsoever but rather as a gentle reminder that I deliberately begin with a reference to unity, for that is what the monarchy, as embodied by the Lieutenant Governor, with all its traditions, with all its values and with all its authority, means to me. Above and beyond its constitutional or legal implications, the monarchy symbolizes something greater than elected officials, greater than parliaments, greater than premiers, greater than the Prime Minister. It is permanent, it is apolitical and it represents the people, because with all its regal pomp and circumstance it is a unifying symbol for all of us through our allegiance and rights of citizenship. The monarchy, the Queen and the Lieutenant Governorship are essential components to our Canadian identity and to our national sense of destiny.
We are therefore privileged and humbled as Canadians to have been honoured by the distinguished service that has been freely given in this regard by our friend Linc. As a Canadian, as a parliamentarian, as our Queen's representative since 1985, Linc's legacy of accomplishment is nothing but remarkable. He served his country during the Second World War as a corporal in the Royal Canadian Air Force, joining in 1942 at the age of 20. While stationed in Vancouver, for example, Linc got his first taste of adult discrimination when he was refused service in a downtown tavern because of the colour of his skin. Typically, he did not let that incident pass without standing up for what he knew was right.
In 1946, he met a beautiful young woman by the name of Yvonne Harrison whom he married in 1948 and with whom he is still in love. I am delighted to note that their wonderful marriage has flourished for more than 42 years, a milestone that many in this House will know has special meaning for me and my party.
Family has always been important to Linc. He attributes much of his success to Yvonne, and before her, to his mother, Mae Rose, who believed that education was the route to a better future. That conviction is one that Linc has relayed to many others across this country and more recently, as Lieutenant Governor, to so many young people across this province. Linc's one regret with respect to his education was that his mother did not live to see him graduate from university. I am sure she knows and I am sure she is proud.
1610
After receiving his BA in 1949, Linc applied for a sales position, for which he was qualified, with Stelco in his beloved Hamilton, only to be turned down after being told customers would not want to deal with a black person. Rightfully angered, he channelled his frustration in a positive way, returning to the classroom to pursue studies in law. Again he excelled, returned to the community to practise law and later decided to pursue life in public service, something I understand he was encouraged to do in a very active way by the late Right Honourable John Diefenbaker.
In reviewing Linc's record of public service for these remarks today, I found a news article which reported a similar message by Linc to a black history conference in Toronto in 1979. He said, "You can hold all the meetings among yourselves and carry banners on the street corners, but if you don't become involved at the municipal, at the provincial, at the federal levels of government, you are practically whistling in the dark." Linc got involved as a Progressive Conservative back in 1965. He ran and he lost, something many of us on this side of the House have some understanding of these days. But this, I believe, should be an inspiration to all politicians in all parties because he got right back up on his feet.
Three years later he won the first of five successive elections in Hamilton West, going on to serve as the member of Parliament for Hamilton West until 1980. The 1968 victory was particularly impressive, according to news reports, because Linc was the only Tory to withstand Trudeaumania in the Liberal sweep of the Golden Horseshoe from Oshawa to Niagara Falls.
He later served, as the Premier mentioned, as Minister of Labour in a Progressive Conservative government where he tabled, among other things, a law that would have given the government the power to order a 20-day cooling-off period before public service unions could begin a legal strike. Once again, Linc was a man ahead of the times and leading the way, acting, I suggest, in fine Progressive Conservative fashion.
In 1980 Linc made what he has described as one of his most difficult decisions by accepting an appointment from Premier Bill Davis to head up the Workers' Compensation Board. Having put more than 12 years into serving the people of Hamilton and Canada in the House of Commons, Linc knew this would be yet another turning point of his career. One advantage of which he made no secret would be that it would allow him to be closer to Yvonne and to his family in Hamilton.
It was during this period in his career that I first made personal acquaintance with Linc. As WCB chairman he had a hands-on approach to management. On occasion he travelled to North Bay where he would entertain complaints and suggestions from the newly elected MPP for Nipissing. I can tell this House that in this important capacity Linc was always available, always accessible. That was a tradition that he carried into his new job as Lieutenant Governor.
Linc's 1985 appointment by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was hailed by the media and by the people alike from all corners of this province. It is a tribute to Linc that while it may have seemed impossible at the time, he went on, I believe, to exceed our high expectations in every way in terms of carrying out his duties.
He told reporters at the time: "My father was a railroad porter, because that was as far as he could go because he was black. My mother was a maid, because that was as far as she could go because she was black. But here it is now 1985, and Lincoln Alexander has the confidence of the Prime Minister of Canada." Those were his words on accepting the appointment.
Today it is 1991. I am honoured and privileged to stand in my place to tell Lincoln Alexander that he indeed has the confidence of us all. I believe it is worth noting at this point that Linc's legacy of accomplishment is noteworthy because of the trails he has blazed.
When he was asked during one election campaign if colour was an advantage to him politically, Linc said, "What colour are you talking about?" On that note, I thought I would conclude today by relating some of the other Lincisms I came across in preparing my notes.
On the day of his Lieutenant Governor's appointment he said: "I am what you'd call -- I don't want to brag -- a street person. In Hamilton it's Linc, and that means everybody calls me Linc. Now all of a sudden it's Your Honour. Well, we're going to have to see about that." When caught by a photographer in 1969 dancing up a storm with a young woman at a Young Progressive Conservative event he explained, "Got to keep in touch with the youth."
On Canada, Linc is a fierce patriot who believes in this country and in what it has to offer. He said: "You still have some racists around here and they're to the right of Genghis Khan, but this is not a racist country. Anybody who says this is a racist country is whistling Dixie. This is one of the greatest countries in the world. This country is steeped in justice, freedom, tolerance and compassion. It's not perfect, but you show me a country that's better." One of my favourite lines is Linc saying, upon his impending retirement this September, that he was looking forward to finally being able to have a chance to speak his mind.
Your Honour, I am proud to thank you today on behalf of my colleagues and our party for your many years of service, for doing your part to make this country one of the greatest in the world and for always speaking your mind. We thank your wife, Yvonne, your son and your daughter-in-law, Keith and Joyce, and your granddaughter, Erika, for sharing husband, father and grandfather with all of us. Thank you, good luck and God bless you, Linc.
1620
Hon Mr Alexander: Pray be seated. We will do away with the formalities at this particular time.
Mr Premier, Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Brant-Haldimand, the honourable member for Nipissing, honourable ministers, honourable members: First let me say how delighted I am to see so many in the House. I remember in the good old days I would have been gone by now; but out of respect for the House and for my appearance, I guess, you are still here.
I understand you are not supposed to read when you are in the House, but I hope you will allow me that liberty at this particular time. This is a very important occasion for me and I do not want to be misquoted or misunderstood.
I appreciate very much the opportunity to address all of you assembled. The sentiments expressed by all speakers are all too generous, but I am deeply touched by their sincerity. In allowing me to speak, I realize that this is yet another great milestone in my life which will never be forgotten.
On 20 September 1985 I said I was excited, nervous and elated, but today I am still excited, nervous and elated, particularly after hearing those accolades. But as well there is a feeling of sadness, because I now realize that time is running out and that 20 September brings about the termination of my role as Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario.
Let me say that to be one of Her Majesty's representatives in this great country is an exciting, rewarding and humbling experience. No greater honour can be bestowed upon one. I have travelled a lot, I have seen a lot, I have learned a lot and I believe I know more about this great province and its people.
I have tried to remove any remaining mystique of this office. I have tried my best to take the office to the people throughout Ontario. I have tried to be a dignified populist, whatever that may mean, and I have tried my best to make sure that my successor will have an office which he or she can be proud of.
The standards set by the Honourable Pauline McGibbon and the Honourable John Black Aird were very high indeed and I hope history will reveal that I at least met those standards. My staff, aides-de-camp and key hostesses have been most helpful in this regard, and I thank them for their hard work, dedication, commitment and loyalty. They have certainly made a difference.
It is necessary to single out others at this time, and I say with pride that I am deeply indebted to all who have been associated with me in the Ministry of Government Services, the legislative service, assembly services, broadcast and recording services, the office of protocol, government garage, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Lieutenant Governor Board of Review and the office of the Clerk. Because of their interest in and concern about this office, in my view the office has been able to be productive, efficient and effective.
My wife and I will never forget the warmth, friendliness and courtesies extended by the people of Ontario, all of which encouraged and inspired us.
Many of you, in order to assess my performance, would be interested in statistics; therefore I now give you some. To date I have made 672 visits or revisits to cities, towns and villages outside of Toronto. There have been 675 receptions in my suite for some 76,000 guests. I have accepted over 4,000 engagements throughout the province. I have visited some 230 schools and I have shaken over 240,000 hands. I must say that being the Lieutenant Governor is an unforgettable experience, but it is most demanding.
In closing, I want to thank all members of the House for the co-operation given and the interest expressed in many ways in the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. I am singularly honoured to stand here as Her Majesty's representative in and for the province of Ontario and extend to each and every one of you every best wish. May God continue to watch over and bless you and guide you in your deliberations. Thank you.
His Honour the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
COMMITTEE SITTINGS
Miss Martel moved resolution 23:
That the following committees be authorized to meet during the summer adjournment in accordance with the schedule of meeting dates agreed to by the three party whips and tabled with the Clerk of the Assembly to examine and inquire into the following matters:
Select committee on Ontario in Confederation to consider matters related to Ontario in Confederation;
Special committee on the parliamentary precinct to consider matters related to the restoration of the Parliament building;
Standing committee on administration of justice to consider Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act in respect of the opening of retail business establishments and employment in them;
Standing committee on finance and economic affairs to consider matters related to the provincial budget;
Standing committee on general government to consider Bill 121, An Act to revise the Law related to Residential Rent Regulation, and a matter designated pursuant to standing order 123 relating to the closure of land registry offices;
Standing committee on government agencies to consider the operation of certain agencies, boards and commissions of the government of Ontario, and intended appointments as provided in its terms of reference;
Subcommittee of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to adjourn to Orlando, Florida, to attend the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures;
Subcommittee of the standing committee on public accounts to adjourn to Winnipeg, Manitoba, to attend the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees and a subcommittee to adjourn from place to place in the United States for the purpose of reviewing section 3.13 of the 1990 annual report of the Provincial Auditor;
Standing committee on resources development to consider Bill 70, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for an employee wage protection program and to make certain other amendments;
Standing committee on social development to consider Bills 43 to 64 inclusive related to the regulation of health professions.
Motion agreed to.
Miss Martel moved resolution 24:
That with the agreement of the House leaders and the whips of each party, committees may meet during the summer adjournment at times other than those specified in the schedule tabled today with the Clerk of the Assembly to consider matters referred to them by the House or to consider matters designated pursuant to standing order 123.
Motion agreed to.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Miss Martel moved resolution 25:
That committees be authorized to release their reports during the summer adjournment by depositing a copy of any report with the Clerk of the Assembly, and upon the resumption of the meetings of the House, the Chairs of such committees shall bring any such reports before the House in accordance with the standing orders.
Motion agreed to.
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ONTARIO IN CONFEDERATION
Miss Martel moved resolution 26:
That the order of the House of Thursday 20 December 1990 appointing the select committee on Ontario in Confederation be amended by striking out "June 27, 1991" and substituting "November 25, 1991" therefor.
Motion agreed to.
INTERIM SUPPLY
Mr Laughren moved resolution 21:
That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing 1 August 1991 and ending 31 October 1991, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.
Hon Mr Rae: We are all looking at each other and waiting for "After you, Alphonse." It is my understanding that after we move this motion, there will be a Conservative speaker, the Leader of the Opposition will speak and then I will speak briefly. I hope we can reach some agreement on time.
Mr Harris: At this very moment the member for Etobicoke West is back, ready, hot with prepared remarks and up to date as of this very second. I would encourage members to listen to his remarks at this time.
Mr Stockwell: My comments will be directed specifically to the budget, the announcements of the deficit, the debt and exactly where this province is heading in the next little while.
I had some very serious concerns on that date, 29 April, when the announcement was made by the Treasurer that he was throwing this province into what I consider to be a very uncomfortable, horrendous position with respect to the finances, the projected financial failure and the concerns the people of the province have brought forward.
Members will note that today there was the display of a large magnitude of people who wanted to vent their frustrations against this government. It was specifically aimed at the one bit of work they did this session, which was basically the budget. Their great concern was the $9.7-billion deficit and the potential $35-billion debt they will be applying over the next four years.
This has been an ongoing debate and an ongoing issue in the province for the past couple of months. I suppose many people felt that when a budget is released, it usually gets a few days of press and publicity and that any comments made after that are generally buried in the back pages. What I think is very interesting about this is that the press has carried it forward and has carried on at great length about how wrong is the direction this government is taking.
1630
There is much debate about the public hearings that are to take place over the summer. I think this is a very healthy thing the government has agreed to, through much cajoling from us, the opposition. I think it is a very healthy attitude to take, to hear from the people across this province exactly what they think of the NDP's fiscal policy. I encourage as many members across the floor as possible to attend as many meetings as they can, because I think they will get a very large and healthy dose of reality.
The suggestion is always made in this House that the government is speaking for the people and speaking for the people who are least capable of speaking for themselves. I have no debate with that argument. I believe that in the past they have spoken for these people and, in my opinion, have represented them very well. But -- and very clearly there is a big "but" here -- there must be some room in the government for input from the business community, for input from the taxpayers and for input from the great unwashed. The great unwashed feel very oppressed today by this government which has instituted a fiscal policy and financial initiatives that will do nothing to create jobs, that will do nothing to retrain, re-educate and bring us forward in the next few years to rally our way out of this recession.
There is minor debate on very few of the points of their budget. Occasionally some lost soul, as was suggested earlier, comes out and barks some illogical bit of knowledge about what a responsible budget it was, but on the whole the people in the business community, the taxpayers and the citizens of this province have come out in near unanimity and said that this budget is not good, that it is not an acceptable fiscal policy and that it is not something they are prepared to live with.
Now the government is going to trot out a couple of party lines about Galbraith and a few others who have said it is the way to go. It is simply not the case. I think the poll in the Toronto Star this morning and the poll that Gallup brought forward this morning were very clear indicators this government is falling in popular opinion, some 21 or 22 points in the last few months. Their federal counterparts are falling at the same rate, due to the economic decision-making at this level. There is no question about it. The direct link has been made by all polling companies that have done this. The decisions this government is making are directly affecting its federal counterparts. Clearly a message must be sent to this government. The message is it must rethink its fiscal policies; it must rethink its fiscal plans.
An announcement was made today about an increase in the minimum wage. During that discussion there was much argument about how this would serve the public. There was a study just released, I believe, by two universities in this country that suggested that if the minimum wage according to the Agenda for People, the government's recommendation, was adopted, 53,000 jobs would be lost. Does the government really intend, when it makes these kinds of wide-ranging decisions, to make 53,000 people lose their jobs? I think not.
This government is slightly misguided, totally inept, as we have seen over the last session, and has left this province in the very precarious situation of having to dig its way out of one of the worst financial holes, which it will be in within four years.
I will say again, as I have said in the past, that this government is caught on the horns of a dilemma. The dilemma is that it wrote the Agenda for People and it is incapable of implementing it. It wants to appeal to its rank-and-file members and it is incapable of doing that without doing serious harm to this province.
I project this to be a one-term government. I project this to be a government that will be racked with scandal, which we have seen in the past, and racked with hate -- basically I cannot say it any other way -- from the community with respect to its financial attitudes and its fiscal positions.
I honestly believe the crowd out there today was very upset. There were quite a number of them. It is unusual to see such a large crowd when there is really no direct benefit in appearing. You could almost see the doctors coming out when you were talking about their salaries, or the nurses coming out when you were talking about their salaries, or certain interest groups coming out when you were talking about their salaries, but there was no direct benefit to those thousands and thousands of Ontarians who showed up today. They were simply there to state that the policies of this government were misguided, that the policies of this government are unachievable and will drive us into economic ruin. I think they were very clear, and they are very, very upset out there, bordering on hate.
In closing, this session will be remembered, I suppose, for the budget itself and probably to some degree for the antics of the cabinet ministers who sit in this government. I would only say that I think it is all very clear and on the public agenda exactly where the socialists in Ontario have gone. They have gone from the holier-than-thou, sanctimonious group of angels we knew in opposition -- and know in opposition at every local council meeting, in every neighbourhood and in every part of the province -- to a blundering government that is economically ruining Ontario.
The Deputy Speaker: I would like to indicate the presence in the west gallery of the former member for Oakville South, Doug Carrothers.
Mr Nixon: I am glad to join in this debate as the session winds down. The Premier came over and mentioned to me as he was leaving the chamber that he was going to be speaking on behalf of the government and that I should keep going until he returned, so if anybody has the feeling I am presuming on his time unduly, I am innocent, as always.
I was interested to hear the honourable member who just spoke refer to the large crowd of disaffected business persons gathered on the lawn. The numbers have been variously estimated at something over 5,000. In the NDP press it is perhaps 500, but as I was looking out the window from my office it was a very large group indeed. I was keeping tabs on the windows of the Premier's office so that if anything untoward occurred I would, with my Polaroid, get him in the act.
Members may have noticed I did not go out to represent the Liberal Party, although I would like to have, but the pressure of other responsibilities kept me in my place. I remembered that the last occasion when the business community demonstrated on the lawn of Queen's Park about a month ago, I received an even more unwelcome reception than the hated Treasurer of Ontario. I was just thinking it was probably wise of me as interim leader to ask my colleague the honourable member for Wilson Heights to go out. I suggested he might even attend the rally in his Mercedes so that the people out there would know they had someone who was thinking at the same level as themselves.
I was also thinking of the many occasions over more than 29 years when I have gone out in front of the building here to meet disaffected citizens. I cannot recall an occasion except one where I was well received. I am not sure what the lesson there is, other than that it does not matter from my point of view whether I am in opposition or government; I always seem to be on the wrong side of something when I am presenting myself to the public.
The one occasion, the members will be interested to know, when it was a pleasure was when the farmers were not marching on Queen's Park; they came in their tractors. I had carefully seen that as I left the farm I did not clean up for the city too much and they recognized me as one of their own, as we discussed the depredations of the then Progressive Conservative government on the farming community. It had driven them into the recession from which they have yet to recover.
I do not want to dwell on that, as I really feel it is somewhat inappropriate for me to spend a lot of time talking about the economy of Ontario. I have done that in the past with great effect, as the honourable members will recall; not that it changed anything, but it got some things off my own chest, off my own mind, usually of a critical nature. But for a few brief months, as it seemed, I was defending the policies of the government and in a sense the process continues.
1640
I just want to say something about the demonstration in front this morning, because there was a very large one and it clearly indicated that this segment of the community has no confidence in the NDP government. Obviously, that is not much of a surprise. Certainly during previous times, when I was received sometimes with almost obscene aggression, it was because the people had been bused in from the union centres of Hamilton and Oshawa and I had a chance to hear their clearly expressed views on those occasions. If there is a message here it is that everybody has a right to these demonstrations and a responsibility to put his point over strongly. People listen to those and do the best they can to respond in a fair and equitable way.
I can recall the former member for Brant, my sainted father, talking about back in the 1930s when the demonstrations were perhaps even more serious than the one we were observing this morning. On one occasion he recalled, I believe in 1935, just after the government had changed on that occasion, that the whole of the front lawn of the Parliament Building was full right down to College Street, but this was before they had the benefit of effective amplifying systems. While there were a couple of speeches made, no one could hear, but people were just standing in silence because in those days there was no medicare, there certainly was no public housing, and the parents were in a situation where they could not find the wherewithal to even put shoes on the children so they could go to school.
While we may feel, correctly, in the values we understand and the balances and checkpoints we understand, that this recession is cruel and in many respects unusual, that it comes from bad decisions made in Ottawa and that it is deeper and more affected by bad decisions and inadequate decisions made by the present government of Ontario, still it is necessary to keep some balance and realize that over the years since then, governments of all political philosophies have established programs in this province and in this nation for which we are very proud and thankful and for which the taxpayers must pay. There is simply no alternative to that.
While I could expound on my theories of deficit financing, and many of you know those, still the fact remains that the community properly demands the kind of superior education we are used to and the best medical services in the world. We criticize them but we know basically that they are unexceeded in their breadth and quality, that the people demand opportunities for their families and for themselves to participate in an economy which really we are proud of.
I was interested to read in the 1 July edition of Maclean's magazine an interesting assessment made by the United Nations which said that Canada was -- it grieves me to say it -- the second best place in the world in which to live on the basis of the provision by governments of basic services -- education, health, transportation -- and a buoyancy in an economy that gave people an independent opportunity to live their lives as individuals should. Surely our aim here is to provide for the realization of the qualities of individuals through education, through good health, through good housing and through an understanding of their responsibilities in their own village and in the global village.
It is in this regard that I suppose we have to look even further. As the debate rages across the well of this House about how inappropriate the decisions were of the previous government and the previous previous government, but more particularly the present government, from time to time we have to step back and look at the world as a global village and see how marvellously fortunate we are, not for what we as members have accomplished, although we continue to undertake accomplishments and have goals that are commendable, but for what has been done by people who were here before us, and in municipal government and in federal government.
I think it is important for us to do that from time to time, particularly as we feel more and more that the centre of the universe is right here and that our own speeches and statements and interjections are the things upon which the balance of life depends. All of those are of uniformly high quality.
Hon Mr Cooke: Why did you look at Elinor when you said that?
Mr Nixon: I was looking at both my good friends because their interjections and comments in here are of uniformly high quality, we would all agree. I will ask for a show of hands later.
Without getting too preachy about these things, on an occasion like this we have to, I believe, recognize the advantages we have here. We have these tremendous challenges which, as we look back over our years of service, tend to be as tough now as they ever were, or perhaps are tougher.
When we see the difficulties that our nation faces and the goodwill that comes out of here as we try to encourage ourselves and particularly our electorate to think positively and generously about our fellow Canadians, whether in Quebec or Prince Edward Island or Alberta or wherever, we realize that goodwill may not be enough. There has to be a good deal of hard work and, I suppose, good luck.
More than anything else, it is the generosity of spirit which has been exhibited by Canadians over the years which will carry us forward into a re-Confederation. I am not totally convinced that generosity of spirit exists in the quality now that it has in the past. There is a tendency for older politicians or older anybody to feel that somehow there has been a minor disintegration of the things they think are important. I would be prepared to debate with any member of the House the qualities of generosity of this type and the setting aside of mindless prejudice now compared with, for example, when I was first elected in 1962. We have had lots of controversy over those times, but there has not been what I detect as a rejection of this generous spirit that has characterized Canadians in general in our historic past.
I will relieve you, Mr Speaker, by saying I am not going to dwell on that subject because you have heard me talk about it on more than one occasion.
There is a great challenge there. We all support the Premier, who must be our principal spokesperson in this regard over the next few months. We wish him well and we are going to be supporting whatever is useful in restructuring our Confederation and seeing that it is going to go forward with something better than just a few Band-Aids plastered on it.
I was interested in thinking about comments made by the present Minister of Health, attributed to her at least. I think the words used many months ago were that she regretted the place was not kinder and gentler.
Interjection.
Mr Nixon: She disclaims that, so it must have been the former Minister of Health, a well-known kind and gentle person.
Hon Mr Pouliot: She never said that.
Mr Nixon: It must have been President Bush.
I have seen the former Minister of Health in action, and she sort of goes for violence and mayhem, but in any case all of us have observed this particular Legislature over the last few months -- I would not say degenerate; I do not believe that, I do not feel that -- getting into the sorts of exchanges which are acrimonious, which are rather tough and which challenge the Speaker to maintain some sort of order and some reasonableness.
I do not think we should regret this unduly, but as interim leader, as do all members, I get mail from people saying, "You're acting like silly schoolchildren," and so on. Actually, schoolchildren are usually not quite as silly as this place gets sometimes. But why should we judge? I do not think the motives of any us should be or can be questioned. Looking back on the history of this particular chamber, certainly it has not changed very much, both in my experience and in what you read about how debates were carried on and settled even in the more distant and historic past.
1650
As a matter of fact, there is one account of the Legislature of Ontario, meeting even before this building was in place, when the debates got so raucous, particularly after dinner -- not putting too fine a point on it -- when the minister and a couple of opposition members would actually gather with the Clerk of the House around the table and write the legislation, since there was so much hullabaloo and what we call inattention that it was not possible to proceed with the business in any other way.
Many of the members will be glad to see that the Premier is back in his place. I will return to my carefully prepared notes and deal with the matters I wanted to bring to his attention. Actually, I have just about completed those things.
There is a lot of criticism that comes to us, particularly now that a surprisingly large number of our constituents watch this continuing soap opera saga. They no doubt have certain favourites and certain people with other designations. I get letters from people who say I talk too much and things like that. The Premier probably gets nothing but good letters. I do not know whether he looks at them all. You discount them and you say, "My God, this is really terrible." Still, it is good to hear from those people out there because they are interested in what is going on here. They come to know us and know our views and our capabilities and our responses to the issues.
My observation over these years is that the House responds more and more sensitively to the needs of the community. What could be better than that? Surely that is what we are here for. Every now and then we must stand up and reflect our own views, even though the folks back in South Dumfries township or Burford township may think we are making a glaring error. If we try to keep our fingers on the pulse of every change in opinion, then of course we are totally emasculated or what the broader, more modern word would be. I defer to the former Minister of Health in that regard in case she can think of one.
I think it is important that we realize democracy changes over the years. It certainly has changed in our time, not just in the rules of the House and the emphasis on the exposure of the ministers of the crown to a daily question period without notice, but more than that, in the feeling that the government and the people in all parties are doing their best to represent the needs of the community in a modern and effective way.
I have said this many times, and others have as well. For all of our partisan differences, and they become quite acute and aggressive and focused at times, still I do not think there is anyone here who, when talking about a colleague in any party, would question the basic motivation of us all -- that we have stood for election and worked hard for election and that we have been elected to represent the best interests of our people and the province at large. There is simply no question about that. That is why one of our rules, Mr Speaker, which you apply so carefully and assiduously, is that we do not question our motives, that our motives are in that respect unquestionable and if someone does that it really means appropriate business cannot proceed.
I certainly am not going to spend time advising any cabinet ministers as to what they should be doing at this time. They were working assiduously yesterday in the interests of good government. When members of the press ask me, as they properly do, "Haven't they done one good thing?" I understand that as of yesterday there is something I can point to. We will see about that.
Anyway, I am very glad to speak on behalf of my colleagues when we say we are not opposing interim supply. The government is spending an average of about $180 million every business day. It is hard to believe that is the case, but in fact that is the average rate of expenditure. In these difficult days, the revenue coming in does not balance that. That shortfall is a matter of concern that we have discussed and will continue to discuss.
I have involved myself in this debate for a number of years. I say to the Treasurer, who is not paying any attention to these pearls I am casting, that I continue to have a high regard for him and I really regret the pressures placed on him by his colleagues are such that he has had to make decisions that are so much against the best interests of the economy and the taxpayers of Ontario. We regret that has to be the case, but all of us here wish him well in his duties, as we do the cabinet ministers who must, by their lights and by their abilities, respond to the responsibilities given to them.
Hon Mr Rae: I want to participate very briefly in this debate, principally to pay tribute to the Treasurer who, as I am sure members will appreciate, has worked very hard on behalf of the people of the province in very difficult circumstances. I want the members of the House to know how strongly I support his activities, how much I have appreciated his advice as Deputy Premier and how much I appreciate his friendship and his support as we go through these early days in government.
I have listened with care to the comments by the Leader of the Opposition. Unfortunately, I was not able to listen to the member for Etobicoke West, but I will no doubt have the opportunity at greater leisure over the weekend to read his comments in Hansard, which I look forward to doing.
I cannot resist responding to the Leader of the Opposition by saying that once again it seems to me the Leader of the Opposition has spoken for all of us as he reflects on the nature of this Legislature and the nature of public life. I think it is fair to say that in my political life I have had occasion to say things I have later come to regret. I am not referring to commitments or promises. I am referring to comments that I have made about other people in politics. I have come to regret them. I have tried to make amends.
I see the member for Mississauga West is here. I badly wronged him in the House on one occasion and, as I have said to him privately and I say publicly, I feel that. I still feel badly about that moment. I think these moments, which I dare say other members perhaps have experienced as well, though perhaps not with quite the -- when I make mistakes they are usually done with gusto.
I think that causes us to reflect on the nature of partisan life. The party political system is an institution which has allowed us all to get here. When I reflect on the American political system or on alternatives in which there are no parties or in which there are no political organizations, I am not sure that level of accountability is there. We have to recognize the reality of the party system and recognize the fact that it is the system which has allowed us to get here and has produced governments in the parliamentary system, if we go back looking at the history of parliaments, over a long period of time.
The one comment I hear from the public more often than any other is, "Why can't you people co-operate more with each other?" I dare say it is a comment all members in this House hear when they go back to their constituencies. Part of the answer I have to give, and I more and more feel it is not a particularly satisfactory answer, is: "That's not really how our system is expected to work. If you read through all the constitutional texts, partisan government, constitutional government, cabinet government, however one wants to describe it, is supposed to work in a particular way."
I can only say to members that I think it is important that all of us use this summer to reflect -- and I say this in a way I know they can all take with a grain of salt, but I mean it quite sincerely -- on how we can make the system work better, so there is at least an element of co-operation, an element of trying to share some information and responsibility. The challenge, of course, is that no opposition party wants to take responsibility for the mistakes that a government makes.
1700
I see the member for Halton Centre nodding vigorously, saying to herself, "Well, would you?" I know exactly what she is saying to herself. There have been some exceptions to that. There have been times, I suppose, with minority governments when it is quite accepted and normal. Certainly there were the two years I was here during the accord, which was a novel development in our Constitution, never happened before. That kind of arrangement was made, and as I was making it, so many people in my own party said: "You're nuts. You're giving away too much in terms of your right to oppose and to play that role."
I must confess, now that we have been through this period of time in office, that I think there are a lot of us who feel we have to make the system work better, not simply because the government obviously wants to get more support as we carry out our program, but because we simply have to make the system work better. I would ask honourable members to reflect on that. I can tell them that, as the Premier, I am certainly going to be doing that.
I know the Treasurer, for example, when it comes to the budgetary questions, has said he wants to look at how we can make the process more open. In this business, you're darned if you do and you're darned if you don't. The Treasurer listened on the gas guzzler tax. He listened and people said, "Why didn't you consult beforehand?" The answer is that we cannot consult beforehand because the rules say all budgetary information must be kept a total secret, so in fact if the government was considering particular things in any considerable detail, they could not be shared.
Now the Treasurer has gone through a process of listening and trying to come up with another answer. I know there are those who continue to be opposed to what he did. Somebody said, "Don't you think the government has lost face because it accepted the advice that it should change?" I say to the honourable members opposite, we cannot have it both ways. If they want us to listen --
Mr Bradley: In opposition you can.
Hon Mr Rae: In opposition you can have it both ways under our system, that is right, and we all know that system. I am just saying to people, let's reflect on it. I have been there. I have been in opposition far longer than I have been anywhere else and I know how it is played and how it is done. If that is the mode we want to get into, then we can certainly sustain that mode for a period of time. If there are other ways members want to proceed, then we can proceed in other ways. We will have to reflect on that and make an effort to do so.
I also want to say to members that it is perhaps appropriate for the government to simply say to the public that this is a very difficult moment in our history as a province, not, as I hear some Conservative members saying, because the New Democratic Party won the election on 6 September; we would have a serious economic situation whether the Liberals were in power, whether the Conservatives were in power or whether we were in power. Now members can say, "Some things make it better and some things make it worse," and I hear people wanting to say that, as they are being very attentive listening in their seats and not heckling me today. It seems to be a day when people are into another mode, which I find very interesting and helpful.
Mr Mahoney: You need background noise.
Hon Mr Rae: No, I do not need background noise, I say to the member for Mississauga West.
Mr Elston: Want some heckling?
Mr Sorbara: Resign. Change the budget.
Hon Mr Rae: Now I feel more at home. I will get out of first gear now, if they want. I am quite happy to do that.
Mrs Caplan: Kinder and gentler.
Hon Mr Rae: I do not know about kinder and gentler. What I do know is that this is a fact. The member for Nipissing has made his suggestions with respect to how we could do things differently, and so have members of the Liberal Party. I would only make the point that some of the rhetoric about the deficit situation we face and the alternatives facing the province is really extraordinarily excessive. The Treasury officials who have been briefing us are the same Treasury officials who briefed the previous government, and many of them are the same Treasury officials who have been briefing governments in this province for a long period of time.
Mrs Caplan: You didn't take their advice.
Hon Mr Rae: The member for Oriole says the Liberal Party never took their advice.
Mrs Caplan: I said you never took their advice.
Hon Mr Rae: Oh, we never took their advice.
Mr Scott: You never made this speech before 6 September.
Hon Mr Rae: The member for St George-St David said I never gave this speech before 6 September. Not with as much feeling as I am giving it now, I can tell members that, but with considerable feeling today, I can tell the member.
That is a fundamental fact. We can argue about if we roll back this or we cut back on that or we do this, but we as a province would still have a deficit this year. The Conservatives had a deficit when there was a recession in the early 1980s. It was a large deficit for its time, not as large as the one we are encountering, but a large one. These are facts that I think have to be put on the table and put in some perspective, because the reaction from a section of the public who were on the steps of the Legislature today, a certain public but a part of the public, is one which says, "There shouldn't be a deficit at all," or, "It would be great if we could just get rid of it overnight," or, "Why do we still have one in two or three years?" I can only say to honourable members that I listened carefully to what they had to say and I have said --
Mr Harris: They asked you to balance it in four years. That is all they said. They acknowledged the mess you inherited and said it was a disgrace.
Hon Mr Rae: The member for Nipissing says they have asked us to balance it in four years. I would say to him, if he would come with me and make the distinction between operating and capital, which is an important distinction -- the member goes like this. Let me just say to him, every municipality makes that distinction and every company makes that distinction in terms of long-term investment. So should we.
These are issues that the public is entitled to hear about and that the public will hear about, but the question before us is one that is not going to be solved by rhetoric; it is going to be solved by people showing a willingness to work together. I said to the business community today that we want to work in co-operation with it. We are interested in hearing their suggestions on how we can turn the economy around. If they feel there are other things that could be done, we will certainly be glad to listen to what they have to say. We have spent a considerable time in doing just that.
I want to say to honourable members that on their behalf I want to express my gratitude to you, Mr Speaker, and to the pages who are going to be leaving this day.
[Applause]
I want to express my thanks to the Clerk and to the table officers who have done, as always, a superb job and say that we are very appreciative of the efforts of legislative staff. We appreciate it very much, particularly the work they have done over the last couple of weeks, because we have been asking them to work a considerable amount of overtime and we appreciate it.
I want to conclude by wishing everyone well on all sides of the House, to say it has been an interesting session for me as Premier, to say it has been a session which, despite the rhetoric and bombast, has been a session in which we have accomplished a great deal. There is much legislation that is now in committee that would not otherwise be there.
We have brought forward the legislation on rent review and on wage protection. We have the health professions legislation finally in committee and I am sure the member for Oriole takes some sense of parenthood as this legislation proceeds apace. I dare say if there was a former Conservative Health minister over there he might feel the same way, given the length of time it has been in the works.
I want to conclude by saying that I wish members well for the summer. It is going to be a busy summer for members, and I want to say that in addition to reflecting on how to make the system work better, perhaps members could also reflect a bit on the future of the country. There is an issue that will not go away. It will become more acute, as much as many people might like to think that if we do not think about it, it will get better. It will not. It is something we have to continue to address as a Legislature, as a province, as citizens, as Canadians. I think we can all say on this moment, God bless Canada.
The Speaker: Miss Martel has moved resolution 21. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Motion agreed to.
1710
The Speaker: While the Premier pre-empted one of my remarks, it is customary for the Speaker to pay tribute to the pages, not all of whom are here currently, they are on other duties, but allow me the opportunity to say on behalf of all the members that the pages have once again served with great distinction on behalf of all the members of the assembly and I think they deserve another round of applause.
[Applause]
RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR BRANT-HALDIMAND
Mr Nixon: Mr Speaker, I request your permission to make a personal statement. The letter I am giving to the page for you contains my resignation as member for Brant-Haldimand, effective 31 July 1991. I do this with some regret, but I felt that the circumstances of my own life, which are rapidly moving along, required this as a decision.
I thought it might be appropriate if I might just bring to your attention that my wife and some members of my family are in the gallery. I am not sure that their emotions are mixed in this regard.
It has been a high honour and an extremely interesting life experience to represent the area of Brant county and ancillary areas since 18 January 1962, which, I say to all members, does not for me seem very long ago. I would say to anyone who is interested in listening that, in my view, a career in politics and public life in that sense is worth while and fulfilling.
Having experienced many years in opposition, like a number of the government members and now a few of the Progressive Conservative members, and five years in government, government is definitely better. The work in opposition, however, should never be discounted. I know, sir, that you, who have had substantial experience in that regard yourself, would agree that the system depends on the checks and balances of opposition being properly put forward and with all the resources we now have in that regard.
I just want to say that one of the best experiences here, naturally, has been the friendships I have experienced and established in all political parties over those years. When it gets right down to it, while a person may try to remember certain specific accomplishments, and it is a little difficult to do that, still, the acquaintances, friendships and the stimulation of working in this particular chamber are all-important.
I cannot imagine another lifestyle or employment where you go from total, unbelievable boredom to the other extreme of hanging on for dear life to your political life and honour, and at the same time from periods of rather focused anger and aggression, always under your direction and the rules, Mr Speaker, to just the other extreme where the greatest of friendships and goodwill are established, because when it comes right down to it we all share, as I said previously this afternoon, the same goals and the same aspirations and many of us the same pressures.
So, sir, I have placed my resignation in your hands. I want to thank you for your friendship and concern in many of these matters.
Hon Mr Rae: I wonder if I might be permitted to say a few words. I hope I can safely say the honourable member and I are friends. I have the highest regard for him as I have told him privately, and publicly said on a number of occasions in this House.
There were moments in 1985 when I had mixed emotions about the experience of that election, which was not one of my more successful efforts, I point out, my first election as leader. The results were there and we had to make a critical choice as a party as to what we would do and how we would respond. I can only tell the members of the House that my regard for the Leader of the Opposition, which was not at that point out of this world, because he had given me a hard time when I first got here and I could not quite get used to that -- the dignity with which he conducted himself and the genuine sense of history he showed during that time of what needed to be done and what could be done, to me was just a model.
I can remember distinctly calling him the day he was about to speak on the final vote of the Conservative government and reflecting on his own life, his father's very distinguished career, the way in which his father came into the Legislature at a dramatic moment in the life of the province and served the public so well, and then faced, as he did, a long period in opposition. I can remember sharing with him the thought that this was indeed an important moment in his life, for all of us and for the province.
The member's directness, his effectiveness as a Treasurer, I think, are a matter of record. I would continue to say some things about the previous administration. I am not about to stop saying those things. But despite our differences of opinion on policy I do not think there is anybody in this House who does not have, and did not have in his period as Treasurer, enormous respect for his ability.
His effectiveness in question period is there. I have the scars to show it but, unlike Lyndon Johnson, I will not reveal them for all to see; many of them are of an internal kind. He has been a most effective spokesman for his party, both before 1985 and after the election when he became the Leader of the Opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition and I had a sufficiently sound personal relationship that we were able, after 6 September, to have some discussions on my initiative. I said to the Leader of the Opposition, "If there is ever a moment when you decide you would like to serve the province in some other way" -- and I think it is fair to say it is a natural transition for somebody who has been in opposition, then in government, then back as interim Leader of the Opposition -- "there is always, in my view, room in the broader public service for someone of your calibre and quality."
1720
When the Leader of the Opposition made known to me his intention to step down I told him, without consulting anyone, I think it is fair to say, that I would like him very much to serve the province. The cabinet yesterday decided, on my recommendation -- and it was not put to a vote, I can tell the Leader of the Opposition -- to appoint Robert Nixon as our representative, our agent general in London, England.
I look forward to his loyal service to this government as well as to the broader public interest. I cannot think of a better person to represent the province. We have been well served by Tom Wells, who has been there for nearly six years and has served the province with great distinction. I want everyone to know that I think Robert Nixon's accomplishments, his dedication, his great humour, his gusto for public life and public service will serve us all remarkably well.
Let me also say how much we are looking forward to having the support, help and, if I may say so, because I know a little bit about some of these things, the work of Mr Nixon's wife, Dorothy. It is a joy to all of us that the Nixon family is here today. I cannot imagine she has not had moments of feeling that she wished there was a little bit more time and a little bit more opportunity to relax and see the good Robert. I hope that will be possible in London. I feel very strongly that it will be, as well as a chance for great service for them both.
The Nixon family has contributed an enormous amount to the quality of life in this province. On behalf of the government, on behalf of the people, I want to say thank you and I want to say how much we look forward to many more years of co-operation, service and goodwill from Robert Nixon, a great and good servant of the people.
Mr Harris: I really do consider it a privilege. Many times, being the leader of a party -- I could say even my party -- is not as rewarding an experience on some of those mornings when you wake up as you thought it was going to be when you fought so hard to get here. There are other days, more of them fortunately than the former -- and today is one of those other days -- where the opportunity to speak indeed is not a challenge, not a duty, not one when I think anything other than how proud and privileged I am to have the opportunity to express the views of my party and, of course, myself and members of this Legislature, on the Nixon legacy. 70 years, father and son.
I know a number of members of the family are here. You will understand I believe 70 is plenty enough for the Guinness Book of World Records, and my bias would be that we leave it at that. It will go into the records that way. But this moment is something -- the nearly 30 years of Bob Nixon and the combined 70 of him and his father -- none of us here in this House will ever experience again in our lifetimes. It is not likely that very many people will, unless Shelley surprises us and some of our children are still here for a dynasty of Martels some day. So it is indeed a privilege.
I was first elected in 1981 and I can remember being a scared and nervous backbencher. The stories of wondering where the washrooms, the facilities and the services are and what to do are all true. I can remember there were 22 of us at that time in our party -- 1981 was a better year for us -- who were newly elected and we were nervous about our first speeches.
Many of them took place at 10 o'clock at night in those days, sometimes 5:45, and Bob Nixon more often than not was there for those first speeches of backbench members. They were so important to us. Their significance in the debate we placed them in of course was irrelevant and we all know that. It was a throne speech debate, a budget debate or a filler. We were not going to influence any votes. We were not trying to. It was an opportunity to talk about our ridings and how proud we were to be here and who we were and what our dreams and hopes and aspirations were for the changes we could effect in public life.
Bob Nixon was not there listening to those speeches because it was going to affect his vote on that Conservative budget of the day or on the throne speech that had been delivered. He was there out of a really deep affection, I think, and appreciation for parliamentary democracy, for the political process. Bob, I am not sure I have ever said this to you, but I wanted you to know how much I appreciated your being there, in 1981, when I gave my first speech. I have re-read it a couple of times. It was rotten. Why you ever sat through the whole thing, I do not know. Many will say they have not improved much over 10 years and I understand that.
But it meant so much to all of us and to many members of all three parties, the fact that he was here in this House, that he was always available. Many times, I know, when he was House leader for the Liberal Party, the only way we Conservative backbenchers could find out what was going on was to go and talk to Bob Nixon. We would come out of caucus and we were not sure, but Bob always could let us know exactly what was going to happen, when it was going to happen, what bills and how we were all going to vote. He freely shared that information with us and it helped us a lot in understanding what was going on.
I remember many of those occasions. I remember the evening sittings when he should probably have been with Dorothy and the family at home, but he felt it was important that he be here. This is before he was in government, before he was Treasurer and before he had those other onerous responsibilities.
I am not going to share the 1985 experience, as the Premier has. That experience was not as good to me as it was to the Premier.
1730
Hon Mr Rae: Well, it took a while.
Mr Harris: It took five or six years, as the Premier has said, but I would rather share those times and moments that meant so much to me.
I have been to the Nixons' home for dinner. I indicated to him I would be available to come back again, and he told me he is moving out of the homestead. He tells me the renovations in the new place are going very well and he has no regrets about anything that is being done, and that one of his family members will be taking over that home.
Bob was really a friend to people involved in politics of all parties, to elected people. He has been a friend of mine, a friend of my family. My wife could never understand how I could ever say anything nasty about Bob Nixon, particularly after she had met him and his wife, in that period of 1985 to today. Somehow or other, I always found some things, as was my job. Many days, it was very challenging for me to do that.
In conclusion, I tried to go through some clippings. We keep a file on everybody, by the way. Members should know this. I flipped through. The file on Nixon is this big. I just pulled out a couple of the good ones. I threw away all the bad ones.
"A Family with Roots." This is 1986. "Scratch the surface of Treasurer Bob Nixon and you will find a farm boy." Well, in many ways he was a farm boy in the very positive sense of those who work the land. I thought of him that way.
"Crusty Hot Stove League Keeps Treasurer on His Toes." How many times did we hear about Earl's Shell? What Earl's Shell symbolized to us was that there are folks back home in our ridings, not the ones who contribute money, not the ones who knock on doors, not the ones who campaign, not the big shots, not the municipal officials or the trustees, but ordinary folks. If you do not keep in touch with them, you will not truly understand what Ontarians are thinking. These are the ones who do not just say the things you want to hear. These are the ones who let you have it when you should have it. Bob was very good at that.
"Nixon Called Most Important Member" of the whole Peterson team in the Peterson era. I have said that on many occasions to many people. Bob Nixon will disagree with me, but I believe he was the Liberal government from 1985 to 1990.
I thought this was an interesting one. I was not going to use it today, but then I heard Bob Nixon talk about how a month ago he was out on the front steps and he got roundly booed. He also alleged that those common folks out there were all Bay Street people. Then I got this one from 30 September 1987: "Bay Street Cheers Nixon Getting New Job" as Treasurer. It shows you, whether you like to get support from Bay Street or Main Street or Earl's Shell or wherever, it can change from month to month and year to year, and inevitably it does.
"Nixon Coasts to an Easy Victory, Is Already Planning Next Budget."
Mr Nixon: That was nice; that was then.
Mr Harris: That was then; that was 1987. He had 15,000; the runner-up -- not my party -- 5,000, like most election fights for Bob Nixon. He may not have thought of them that way, and I guess if you do take them for granted, they never are easy, but I and those candidates in our party who had to come forward kind of knew what the result was going to be on voting day before they were nominated.
"Nixon More Popular Than Ever," 1987. That was then. "Nixon Calls His Ninth Win a Sweet One." They are all sweet, and Bob has had so many more than many of us, and his family so many.
"The Future: Nixon Predicts Grit Revival," 1990. I always had the sense, and he would know, that this last period of time has not been easy for Bob Nixon. His party has needed him. They have been so much the better that he stayed on. I always had the sense, and it is obviously true, that he would not leave his party. He did not leave them before the last election, when he felt they needed him desperately, and obviously they did. After the election he stayed with them, and I always had the sense that he would not leave -- and this is the last time members will ever hear me say this -- until his party was back on top. I do not know whether it is coincidence that the poll came out today that allowed him to make the announcement today, but Bob Nixon leaves today with his party back on top. After he leaves, I think it will be disastrous.
I thought this one was very good, and I am winding down, but I wanted to say it: "He is Yes Indeed Minister." This is an article from the Toronto Star, 1989. "He's got your world on a string -- purse-string, that is -- and as such is probably the man in provincial politics you'd most love to hate." It is the nature of the job. It says here: "Don't waste your energy. He'll charm you out of that notion and at the same time make you believe that the taxes you're doling out today will 10 years down the road be looked back on with yearning as the good old days."
Mr Nixon: That's right.
Mr Harris: Well, this is the writer's opinion, and indeed Nixon had that charm.
The last one is, "MPPs Fête 70 Years of Nixons."
I am proud to have known Bob and to be his friend. I will always be his friend, now that I am looking for a place to stay, if I can ever get to London. I hope he will always consider me his friend as well. I know with the restraint I have been calling for, I will not get over there on the government ticket. I am going to have to save up my own Aeroplan points or something. I will attempt to do that on those flights that I take and pay for out of my own pocket.
I want to conclude by saying that I and my party endorse and support wholeheartedly the appointment the Premier announces today of Bob Nixon as our agent general in London. I spoke about six months ago with Tom Wells and I asked him: "What's happening, Tom? What's the future? You have overstayed your normal term of appointment." He said: "I know. I wish they'd decide, because I can't afford to stay here any longer." So I pass that on to the Nixons, that this is going to be challenging, it is going to be rewarding. He will serve us very well, but the cost of living in London is even higher than Toronto, if he can believe that. Of course, the wages and the number of jobs are more numerous too.
Bob, we salute you, we toast you and we wish you very well. Every success in the future to you and Dorothy and your family.
1740
Mr Bradley: There are days in the life of a legislative body such as this that we all know will be coming forward and will be arriving. There are days we wish would not arrive and today is obviously one of those, the day on which the member for Brant-Haldimand, a member who has been part of a family which has represented Brant county since 1919, is announcing his resignation from this House.
I cannot think of an individual who has had more impact on this Legislature than Bob Nixon has over those years, certainly more impact on the Liberal Party in his capacity as leader and now interim leader, and of course in his role as a member of the cabinet of David Peterson.
He and I have had the odd disagreement, as members may be aware, but to me Bob Nixon represents what is the best in politics, what some people who observe the political scene today say perhaps is missing. The Premier made some allusion to this earlier in his remarks on interim supply, about the way in which we conduct ourselves as members of political parties and as members of various legislative bodies.
The integrity -- and that is a word that certainly comes to mind for all us -- the honesty, the decency, the forthrightness, the loyalty and the dedication have been well recognized by people in all parties for a number of years in this House, those who have served before us and those who have had the opportunity to serve for some years with Bob Nixon.
Indeed I must confess -- I do not know if "confess" is the appropriate word -- that the reason I am in provincial politics today is because of Bob Nixon. I cannot say that he recruited me in 1967. I understand he tried to block my nomination at the time when there was a rather contentious fight in the city of St Catharines and a much better candidate lost the nomination. I had just turned voting age at the time. But to show the kind of person he is, having gone through that crisis, with many letters coming from my community saying a better candidate could be found, obviously, than this young upstart, the person who rallied to my cause and stood side by side with me -- and I have a photograph of this and there was, combined, about 110 pounds less than today -- was Bob Nixon. I think each one of the members of the Liberal caucus and those who have served over the years could say the same of Bob.
I look up in the gallery and see Dorothy and the family, and of course the grandchildren. Bob reminded me that if I went on at great length the grandchildren particularly would become restless, so I indicated I would try to keep my remarks relatively brief. But I know the strong support the family has provided to Bob over the years, that in the midst of all the fights that take place in the Legislature and on the hustings or around the country, those who were always there to rally to his side, those who were there to provide the consolation at the appropriate time and the support at the appropriate time and who have rallied around him for years were those who are in the gallery today, and they are members of the Nixon family.
I will not go through the history of the Nixon family. I think we all know it. We know that Bob is exceeding proud, and justifiably so, of his father, Harry Nixon, who served from 1919 to 1961 in this Legislative Assembly, and was a former Premier of this province and a member of the Mitch Hepburn cabinet back in the rather interesting days of politics in the 1940s.
I well recall the various leadership conventions that Bob went through. True to my strong support for him over the years, I remember the 1973 nomination for the leader of the Liberal Party, when on the final ballot I rallied to his cause. Left with the choice of Norm Cafik and Bob Nixon, I took Bob Nixon as my choice.
Certainly, at each one of the gatherings of our party -- and I speak in a partisan sense in this case -- there is not a person who is more revered and who has had more support than Bob over the years. I learned that one day in an incident in cabinet when I dared to make a somewhat insulting remark to my friend about who was going to be here, or something of that nature. We are not supposed to tell cabinet secrets, but Bob responded at the time that he would be here as long as the people of this province required him to be here. There was thunderous applause and while I slipped under the table, red-faced and apologizing, Bob of course indicated that all was fine and that the province would carry on.
In philosophy, interestingly enough a lot of people probably do not recognize how liberal Bob Nixon is in terms of the social values he sees in this province and in his view of social issues. He has been portrayed as a fiscal Conservative, and that is probably a good portrayal of him in that he was always careful with the expenditures of this province. At least I as a minister and my colleagues as ministers and members of the caucus would recognize this. At the same time he had that liberal philosophy that saw the very best in everyone, and certainly had a great respect for democracy in this province.
The other thing those of us who have known Bob Nixon a long time could say of him, and those in the opposition and the third party know this well, is that you always know where Bob Nixon stands on every issue. He is certainly not one who disguises his point of view. He expresses it with a good deal of vehemence and determination.
Bob, I was glad in cabinet that the table was 15 feet wide, particularly when we got into some of our heated exchanges. Once again, the tougher the fight and the more heated the exchange, the more support you got for Bob Nixon when we came out into the Legislative Assembly and sat side by side defending a position he perhaps did not entirely agree with and defending an individual. Those who have experienced this in the three parties would recognize this about Bob Nixon and people like him. I have been very pleased with and thankful for that kind of support, as have my colleagues over the years.
Last but not least, I was honoured to be asked to be the guest speaker at his nomination meeting in Caledonia, where I spoke on a number of environmental issues for which he had so much passion over the years. That is something I will probably remember all my life.
I also want to thank you very much, Bob, as do all of us in the Liberal caucus, for all the support you have gathered among members of the legal and teaching professions over the years.
The leader of the third party has mentioned that Bob Nixon leaves the Liberal Party in first place in the polls and we are delighted with that. However, when I look at a person in politics and try to make a judgement, I find the best way to judge such a person is not by the friends he acquires but by the enemies he makes, and Bob Nixon has made all the right enemies in politics.
Last, upon the passing of his father, Harry Nixon, in 1961, a quote appeared about him in the Globe and Mail. It said, "He possessed a balanced perspective, a fund of common sense and a quiet sense of humour." It is obvious that those qualities are hereditary.
Mr Nixon: I appreciate all those comments, but I am out of here.
The Speaker: With the indulgence of the House, on behalf of the assembly staff, of whom the Speaker is the chief administrator, I know you leave behind many friends. There are many staff people who will miss the kindness and understanding you have shown over nearly three decades. I want to wish you well on their behalf.
I would also like to mention very briefly the enormous respect the member for Brant-Haldimand has for Parliament. Parliamentary tradition is very much appreciated by the Speaker.
Hon Mr Laughren: I know a second round of speeches would be inappropriate, and I do not intend to do that. I simply wanted to send across the floor to the soon-to-be-former dean of the Legislature a small token from our caucus that will reflect his roots and, who knows, some day may be something to which he returns. I present this to him.
Hon Miss Martel: Just before I adjourn the House, if I might make a few remarks to the member for Brant-Haldimand: This member of one dynasty wishes all the best to another member of another dynasty in the future.
Mr Speaker, on behalf of all the members, I would like to wish you and your family and all the assembly staff and public servants who work so hard for the people of Ontario a very happy and safe summer. On my own behalf, I wish all my colleagues on all sides a very good summer. Get some rest, and we look forward to seeing you back in September.
The Speaker: I would like to thank all members for the contributions they have made in attempting to assist the Speaker. I appreciate your assistance. I look forward to seeing you back here in the fall. This House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock on Monday 23 September.
On motion by Miss Martel, the House adjourned at 1753.